From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Events|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that 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 links to other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Events.
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

2024 Alaska Air Fuel Douglas C-54 crash

AfDs for this article:
2024 Alaska Air Fuel Douglas C-54 crash (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non Notability to aviation world due to small death count, outmatched by other incidents.

  • Keep - I mean its a cargo jet, of course it only has a few on board but this is a huge airplane, it is very uncommon and has made a lot of coverage around the internet WP:Notability. This is just my opinion that this should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:402:704F:E038:5250:7DD4:7434 ( talk) 18:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - It is not a jet it is a turboprop, i responded to your message on the talk page of this, the aircraft has no notability historically itself, i feel it falls under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not as a solely news worthy incident. Multiple talking head sources have covered it but no major sources other than USA Today have covered it as im seeing. Local news it what im usually finding and it did not make headlines nor national news. Lolzer3000 ( talk) 20:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Like the IP said above, it is uncommon for a plane like a Douglas C-54 to crash. i understand there is only two fatalities but its also a cargo jet carrying lots of stuff. Its one of those crashes that many people may think isn't notable, but is. WP:GNG WP:Notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeekyAviation ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Failure of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE coverage only lasted ~3 days, the event criteria and WP:INDEPTH. Possibility of failing WP:LASTING. This is an old aircraft and not many of them are still flying today. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 02:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    thanks for the laugh! GeekyAviation ( talk) 02:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    what do you mean "thanks for the laugh?" Lolzer3000 ( talk) 15:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

AB Aviation Flight 1103

AB Aviation Flight 1103 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS. Fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:EVENTCRIT. No evidence of lasting effects. The last news report related to the event was AB aviation losing its license (French). Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 03:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - once again, with your logic, most flights with articles ex. Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 708 should be deleted because it doesn't have any continued coverage? There has also been 13 fatalities, i can't tell if this was a sarcastic nomination but whatever it is, this is Abuse of AFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeekyAviation ( talk • contribs) 03:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    This is neither sarcastic nor an abuse of AfD, this is following the given wikipedia guidelines and interpreting them so as to whether we keep these articles or not.

    After 2022, there hasn't any news article covering this accident. Does not meet the event criteria. It's not even sure whether an investigation has been launched. There haven't been any reports of changes in the aviation sector failing WP:LASTING.
    Instead of typing keep, you should go read some of the wikipedia guidelines iI highlighted. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 03:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    i did read it. also from what im seeing from your understanding, you'd need to go nominate for deletion plenty of other articles. you can find it here. GeekyAviation ( talk) 03:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oh why, thank you so much. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 04:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    you're welcome GeekyAviation ( talk) 04:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Heh, not as bad as it may seem. I clicked 20(!) randlom articles from the list and hit not a single page as bad as we are discussing here. - Altenmann >talk 04:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    i don't understand what you are saying, please come and reply once you are back from the bar and sober, thanks so much! GeekyAviation ( talk) 04:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Agree to a certain degree. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 04:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • redirect to AB_Aviation#Accidents_and_incidents, which says it all. - Altenmann >talk
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Comoros. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep I did find some lasting coverage here and here. It was a commercial passenger crash with fatalities, which are usually kept - the problem here is that it happened in the Comoros, so coverage is difficult to search for, but can still be improved. SportingFlyer T· C 05:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Even then, those were singular seperate pieces of articles published in 2022. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 14:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect - given the small size of AB Aviation, the four sentences can be moved there. The "losing its license" part will make more sense with context there. tedder ( talk) 05:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Even though it was only a Cessna 208, the company operating the flight also operated ERJ 145 and EMB 120 aircraft, so it wasn't a typical charter company of a couple of guys with a plane. The accident led to the revocation of the airline's operating license (link to article included in nominator's statement), and a year later, it was still in the news as family members of the crash victims were still in the courts seeking restitution (2022 article, in French here, 2023 article, in French here) In addition, the crash resulted in Comorian civil aviation changing aviation rules to prohibit the rental and chartering of single-engine aircraft for commercial flights (see article, in French here), so the accident has lasting effect in the form of regulatory changes. There is a consensus that accidents of commercial flights that lead to regulatory changes or safety changes meet notability standards, and I believe that's met here. RecycledPixels ( talk) 20:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    I would agree more towards a merge as, on itself, the event isn't notable enough for a standalone article. What you mentioned, the changing of aviation rules isn't solving the problem, it just makes aviation in the Comoros more complicated. If this accident were to have lasting effects, it would have to have come from the investigation itself except no investigation was ever started so actual rule changes which would help develop aviation safety will probably never happen.
    The losing of license, rule changes, court proceedings can all be merged with the airline article. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 02:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    13 fatalities isn't notable? GeekyAviation ( talk) 02:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    There was clearly sustained local coverage of a commercial flight, this clearly qualifies for an article using our sourcing rules. SportingFlyer T· C 02:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I don't see evidence of sustained local coverage after the first week to month. Only 1/4 of the articles linked here provide some sort of analysis. Even then, the said analysis is on the aftermath of the event, not the event itself.
    3/4 of the articles linked in this page were mostly brief bursts of coverage with brief content.

    Outside of these four articles, the term AB Aviation Flight 1103 isn't common so you have to write a short description of the event in french to actually get to the same topic. Even then, the results given link you to Yemenia Flight 626 or other aviation events. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 13:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Wadi Dawan attack

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

All the coverage is from the time of the event in January 2008. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar ( talk) 03:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge to Terrorism in Yemen, there was some coverage the next year from Belgian publications over the perpetrators getting the death penalty for terrorism, but I don't think it's in depth enough to justify an individual article. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 03:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This event article meets the requirements of the GNG, EVENT, and LASTING by plenty of coverage at the time of the event and since. For more recent coverage, see "Voice of a Voyage: Rediscovering the World During a Ten-year Circumnavigation" by Doann Houghton-Alico, from 2016, in Google Books. Not sure why this has been nominated for deletion. The research leaves to be desired. Furthermore, the merger suggested above my opinion would create a situation of undue and should also be rejected. Wadi Dawan attack is a proper SPINOFF. gidonb ( talk) 03:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    "plenty of coverage at the time of the event" does not meet WP:EFFECT and WP:NOTNEWS applies. You've found 1 source, are there others? LibStar ( talk) 03:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Your statement is untrue. I found plenty of sourcing AND ESTABLISHED LASTING WITH AN RS! This nomination is a clear BEFORE failure! There needn't be more sources than one since 2008 because the event was less than 20 years ago. However, there are two. It also appears in The Last Good Man: A Novel, page 33, A.J. Kazinski, from 2012. Libstar, you frequently claim fact-free that events are not LASTING. Why would you do that? gidonb ( talk) 07:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Plenty of sourcing? you've mentioned a mere 2. If this nomination is a failure it would be a unanimous keep which it isn't. LibStar ( talk) 07:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Could you please supply actual text from the 2 books you cite? I'm interested in what it says. Thanks LibStar ( talk) 07:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
"There needn't be more sources than one since 2008 because the event was less than 20 years ago." You're now inventing rules for notability. LibStar ( talk) 07:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Plenty of contemporaneous sourcing for the GNG. Really big numbers. Enough to visit the articles in the other wikis to see that. In addition, there is more than sufficient sourcing from books to prove that this has a LASTING impact just as well. Therefore meets the GNG and EVENT. gidonb ( talk) 07:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Could you please supply actual text from the 2 books you cite? LibStar ( talk) 07:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Why don't you look in Google Books and withdraw this nomination after you do? You should have done a BEFORE upfront! gidonb ( talk) 07:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Could you please supply actual text from the 2 books you cite? Why can't you provide this? LibStar ( talk) 07:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Is there something you're hiding by not producing text as requested? LibStar ( talk) 07:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I try to lead a life also beyond your failed nominations. Some 10 books write about this incident beyond the contemporaneous coverage that is also extensive. I gave 5 examples. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the article meets the GNG based on contemporaneous coverage and that all your fact-free nominations of terrorist incidents under your assumption that these get forgotten – this isn't so and LASTING is met. Terrorism is a real problem and these events get revisited time and again. gidonb ( talk) 11:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTNEWS trumps GNG. Otherwise we'll be creating articles for every event reported in the media. There was a factory fire near my home, should I create an article because it meets GNG? LibStar ( talk) 07:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Or a few weeks ago, Australia's east coast received a lot of rainfall, well reported in all the media, but why isn't there a Wikipedia article for it? LibStar ( talk) 07:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
NOTNEWS DOES not apply to terrorist events with a LASTING IMPACT. You are wasting the valuable time of the community by making baseless claims, and then arguing under the opinion of everyone who disagrees with you, after it is found that haven't done a thorough BEFORE. You have already written eight times under my opinion while you should have invested time before nominating instead of wasting mine. gidonb ( talk) 07:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Question Which page number of "Voice of a Voyage: Rediscovering the World During a Ten-year Circumnavigation" are you referring to? it's a 276 page book. so page number would be helpful. LibStar ( talk) 07:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
It's on two pages in the book. There are more book mentions. About five, not counting other languages than English. gidonb ( talk) 07:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Two pages in the middle of Chapter 9. Google Books does not provide page numbers for this particular book.
Which pages? LibStar ( talk) 08:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Also here:

  • Doctrine of Terror: Saudi Salafi Religion - Page 214, Mahboob Illahi, 2018
  • Yemen Mineral, Mining Sector Investment and Business Guide - Page 189, IBP USA, 2013
  • Yemen: Dancing on the Heads of Snakes, Page 230, Victoria Clark, 2010

Hang on, closer to ten. This nomination ranks among the more failed ones. gidonb ( talk) 07:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 Wyoming Republican presidential caucuses

2024 Wyoming Republican presidential caucuses (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite sources existing, there is no reason for this article to exist separate from 2024 United States presidential election in Wyoming#Republican caucuses. There it can be sufficiently covered in one sentence. Esolo5002 ( talk) 00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 American Samoa Republican presidential caucuses

2024 American Samoa Republican presidential caucuses (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite sources existing, there is no reason for this article to exist separate from 2024 American Samoa presidential caucuses#Republican caucuses. There it can be sufficiently covered in one sentence. Esolo5002 ( talk) 00:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply

2011 Andorra helicopter crash

2011 Andorra helicopter crash (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS. Accident has some coverage (all in french) but fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Event doesn't demonstrate lasting effects and fails the event criteria. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 02:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Would the nominated article fall under criterion G5 of speedy deletion since the page creator, 78NewX, is a suspected sockpuppet? Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 02:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    not suspected as he is already confirmed one but there is nothing wrong with the page (silly edits), just needs more information and fixed grammar GeekyAviation ( talk) 02:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    It doesn't matter whether the page has anything wrong with it, the article hasn't been substantially edited which means that this article probably falls under criterion G5 of speedy deletion. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 03:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Per the user page:

    This account is a suspected sockpuppet of Ryan kirkpatrick ( talk · contribs · logs) and has been blocked indefinitely.
    Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 14:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - so with your logic, most flights with articles ex. Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 708 should be deleted because it doesn't have any continued coverage? I would've said delete if there was less deaths but since this accident was relatively old, i say just leave but help clean up the article (grammar, punctuation, date, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeekyAviation ( talk • contribs) 03:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Whether or not Flight 708 should be included is another discussion.

    From the inclusion criteria:
    1. Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. Barely meets the criterion
    2. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).
    3. Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.
    4. Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.
    Already fails nearly all four of the criteria.

    Recommendations REC 48/13 and 49/13 were all issued to the operator, so whilst these may have improved the operator's safety, nationwide or internationally, the accident did not have major lasting effects. Final Report

    Since 2011, there hasn't been any news surrounding the event failing WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 03:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Andorra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Perth Corporate Rumble

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

Primarily worked on by a single purpose editor. Only 1 article links to this. Full of non notable participants and just a results listing. Only coverage seems to be in Perthnow. but fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar ( talk) 03:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 Sindh Premier League

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NEVENT. The tournament doesn't have official status with no lasting effect. RoboCric Let's chat 05:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Zexi Li

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

Pretty clear WP:BLP1E as this person is only notable for post-event legalities regarding the Canada convoy protest. All sources in the article and found in a WP:BEFORE check are in regards to the protest. Subject has otherwise demonstrated a consistent pattern of low-profile activity, while the article has been repeatedly vandalized in attack-page style. Pinging @ Bueller 007: who initially raised BLP1E concerns. ―  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Challenge Cup semi final

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

Apparently I have to use AfD for this: I think this article should be moved to draftspace as it as the potential to be a good article similar to FA Cup semi-finals. However it is currently incomplete, unreferenced, and is not fit for the mainspace. Mn1548 ( talk) 15:31, 26 April 2024 (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/2024 April 26. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 15:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Rugby league, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: This page has been unreferenced since its creation in 2016. It's more likely that, if sent to draft space, it ends up being G13 deleted in 6 months time anyways. I'd prefer the matter of this get addressed here instead of being draftified and deleted in 6 months. Hey man im josh ( talk) 18:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    That is a fair point. Another user has suggested deletion in a previous discussion. My preference is to move article to draft but I'm also not opposed to deletion as article can always be remade at a later date. My main issue with the article currently is not that it is unreferenced but rather is is incomplete in the sense that the list is missing everything from 1898 to 1979. Mn1548 ( talk) 11:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Semi finals are not notable enough for a stand-alone article. I PROD'd this a while ago, but it was contested with an WP:OSE argument (i.e. FA Cup semi-finals exists, so this article should too). Even if the article were improved, I'm not convinced it is notable enough to pass WP:LISTN. J Mo 101 ( talk) 21:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Agree with this point. While I think this article could be made to the standard of the FA Cup article, the reality is football will always have more coverage than rugby league, so finding enough secondary sources might be problematic for it to pass as a stand alone list. Mn1548 ( talk) 18:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Maratha-Rajput conflict (1800-1820)

Maratha-Rajput conflict (1800-1820) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

POV fork of [1] backed entirely by self published obsolete sources. Creator was recently blocked for socking. Ratnahastin ( talk) 03:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, India, and Rajasthan. Skynxnex ( talk) 03:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article doesn't pass WP:GNG. I nowhere read about a topic called Maratha-Rajput conflict (1800-1820). Nothing of significance happened in 1800 or 1820 which can start or end any such conflicts. There were many conflicts in present day Rajasthan around that time like kingdoms of Marwar, Mewar, Jaipur, Scindhia, Holkar, Pindari etc all fighting with one another, Marwar-Jaipur conflicts, Holkar-Scindhia conflicts, pindari helping one kingdom abandoning them and helping other, all of these happened simultaneously, so it can not be said that Rajputs like Mewar, Marwar, Jaipur etc were fighting unitedly against United Maratha forces of Holkar, Scindhia and pindaris. I seriously think the article is more like generalization of almost a century long warfare in this period of anarchy which also had other players like Mughals and many more new entrants like Sikhs, British, and many soldiers of fortunes working under some powers and later switching sides. In my opinion this article doesn't pass notability issue. Just show some references or citations where this particular topic is mentioned separately, or even just mentioned. This article is nothing but a rubbish page made by a abusive account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4052:91F:698F:5590:CBF8:CC1B:D8BB ( talk) 18:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom.-- Imperial [AFCND] 10:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC) reply

2008 Bin Salman mosque bombing

2008 Bin Salman mosque bombing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The 2 sources provided are from the time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar ( talk) 07:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge to Terrorism in Yemen under its own section. The coverage above does not convince me of long term notability; there was some commentary immediately after it occured, but not a lot. Most notable as part of the overall terrorism situation (which merging it to the article preserves) It's possible of course that long term coverage exists in another language and if evidence of that is ever provided I would not argue against its recreation, but I doubt it. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk) 21:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Pakistan audio leaks controversy

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

per WP:SINGLEEVENT. This fails WP:GNG. — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 13:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. This isn't about a single event, and coverage has been ongoing for months and months at this point (see here, here, and here). The article needs an update, but as usual, AfD isn't clean-up. Cortador ( talk) 14:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

But this article discusses audio leaks involving Pakistan's prime ministers, but the sources you provided doesn't pertain to prime ministers. --— Saqib ( talk | contribs) 15:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The article starts with the sentence "The Pakistan audio leaks controversy stems from several leaked audio conversations involving Pakistan's prime minister Shehbaz Sharif and former prime minister Imran Khan among others." Emphasis mine. The second article talks about "the recent audio leaks involving politicians, judges, and their relatives", confirming that sources treat the audio leaks controversy as one event, whether or not a given leak featuring a (former) prime minister or not. Cortador ( talk) 06:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete While the topic has indeed received extended coverage over a significant period, the accumulation of sources does not inherently justify the retention of an article. The core issue pertains to notability and whether the subject matter has sustained coverage that adds substantial information. The main concern is the notability and consistent, in-depth coverage. The provided references don’t seem to enhance the topic’s comprehension. While it’s true that the AfD isn’t just for clean-up, it does allow for evaluating an article’s significance. In this instance, the article seems to fall short of the expected encyclopedic depth and quality.  samee   converse  02:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

It is a delete but you really should copyedit your generated tokens from an AI prompt. Recent ChatGPT models are trained on guest post spam and they will obvously spill out crap like this - avoid it all cost or you will loose your reputation [3]. If you still want to use chatbot then use the advanced model of Claude instead. At least it is objective and concise like Wikipedia. 111.119.37.78 ( talk) 02:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:Notability. Also lack of depth. Wikibear47 ( talk) 00:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Would like to point out that WP:SINGLEEVENT (cited in the nomination) explicitly doesn't apply here as that is for articles about people, not articles about events. Elli ( talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Seems like this should procedurally closed then for lack of a valid reason for deletion. Cortador ( talk) 15:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Let's allow the AfD to run its course. As Samee pointed out, the primary concern still revolves around WP:N and consistent, in-depth coverage as demanded per WP:GNG. Lets not forget WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --— Saqib ( talk | contribs) 16:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

2023 Khyber bombing

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

All the sources provided are from the time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. Whilst it may be terrorism, the sources do not definitively establish that. LibStar ( talk) 02:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2023, where it's already mentioned. Traumnovelle ( talk) 21:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Redirect (or merge selectively) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2023#April. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 23:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 04:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

United States of America Computing Olympiad

AfDs for this article:
United States of America Computing Olympiad (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was nominated a year ago and the result was no consensus, because an organization that is the main feeder competition for the IOI has to have sources. I agree, but really, there is nothing, I've tried. I propose redirection to International Olympiad in Informatics. Snowmanonahoe ( talk · contribs · typos) 15:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment - Here's a couple of news sources I found (however, they aren't in-depth):
- https://www.oregonlive.com/my-north-of-26/2015/06/daniel_chiu_from_catlin_gabel.html
- https://www.ahwatukee.com/news/article_ae8b9bf0-f355-11e4-a52a-a7cc90dfff19.html
- https://scnow.com/news/local/clemson-university-to-host-usa-computing-olympiad-for-top-high-school-students/article_b3187844-0e21-5ed9-877c-8158b66bc8f9.html Staraction ( talk | contribs) 15:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette Edit! 16:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

2017 Chaman suicide bombing

2017 Chaman suicide bombing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The 9 sources are from the time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar ( talk) 09:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Per usual disclaimers (later sources may exist in other languages, it's Pakistan), merge (cut down version) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 21:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk) 14:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

2017 Dera Ismail Khan bombing

2017 Dera Ismail Khan bombing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The 4 sources are from the time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. Also no deaths reported so WP:NOTNEWS also applies. Also oppose merging with any terrorism article as it is not clear this event was terrorism. LibStar ( talk) 09:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This source explicitly describes it as terrorism, and all others generally refer to it along those lines, referencing attacks and militancy and whatnot. Hence, merge (cut down version) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 21:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk) 14:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

May 2017 Peshawar bombings

May 2017 Peshawar bombings (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The 4 sources are from the time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. Also no deaths reported so WP:NOTNEWS also applies. LibStar ( talk) 09:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge (cut down) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017. Sources describe it as terrorism. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 21:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk) 14:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

NOAA Flight 42

NOAA Flight 42 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Barely intelligible. From what I've gathered, a Hurricane Hunters flight had an engine failure in flight during a mission, but was still able to return to base and land safely, see Hurricane hunters#Other incidents. This does not merit a separate article. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Merge and redirect to Hurricane Hugo. The subsection of NOAA Flight 42 already explains in detail what happened. I don't really think a separate article is needed.
Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 15:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

April 2024 Chernihiv missile strike

April 2024 Chernihiv missile strike (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. Insignificant, one off airstrike among hundreds, if not thousands of airstrikes in the span of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Ecrusized ( talk) 18:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

the killing of at least 16 civillians and the targeting of civillian infrastructure is absolutely news Monochromemelo1 ( talk) 18:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC) User not extended confirmed per WP:RUSUKR. Mellk ( talk) 23:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
It really isn’t. Russia has been deliberately attacking civilian targets for a significant amount of time now. This strike is no different than the thousands of other attacks. Cutlass Ciera 18:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
"is absolutely news" @ Monochromemelo1: Please read policies before commenting on your interpretation of their shortcuts. WP:NOTNEWS is a policy which states that "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". Quote, "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion... breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information Ecrusized ( talk) 21:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
It sure is news, but this isn't a newspaper. We need some sort of coverage to build an encyclopedia article. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete. It's war. There are airstrikes. What else is there to say? PARAKANYAA ( talk) 21:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
almost every israeli air strike is documented during the Israel–Hamas war why cant the same be done for air strikes by russia? Monochromemelo1 ( talk) 21:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC) User not extended confirmed per WP:RUSUKR. Mellk ( talk) 23:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here. Ecrusized ( talk) 21:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
It's NOT a war according to Russia. They call it a "special operation". Ukraine calls it act of terror during war. Both deserve an article. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk) 12:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Either keep or delete collectively. A missile strike against a residential building murdering 17 civilians and injuring over 60 others should sound like a highly notable event worth an article in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, because the fascist Russian state has been targeting civilians indiscriminately in a disgusting effort to break their will to resist, these have indeed become routine. But this article is no less notable than many that have already had an article for some time, such as 2024 Donetsk attack, 2024 Pokrovsk missile strike or August 2023 Chernihiv missile strike, just to name a few. We should either keep them all or delete them all. We need a centralized discussion to decide what do we do with these articles and establish a threshold of notability. By deleting one article every few months while three other similar articles have been written we do not go anywhere. Super Ψ Dro 22:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There is a number of articles about similar russian airstrikes against civilians in Ukraine, with more or less casualties: April 2023 Sloviansk airstrike, 2023 Uman missile strike, Kharkiv dormitories missile strike and many more. -- Lystopad ( talk) 23:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - we can decide whether this fails WP:NEVENT after the war is over. But for now, I see no reason why it should be deleted; every Russian warcrime is notable enough for an article. -- Rockstone Send me a message! 00:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Although there's missile strikes being launched into Ukraine consistently, this one missile strike produced a significant casualty count compared to the others. Due to that, I see it as a notable event that is significant enough to have it's own article. Nintenga ( talk) 01:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep similarly as the August 2023 Chernihiv missile strike-- Noel baran ( talk) 04:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Start larger discussion The only thing that makes this stand out from the dozens of other articles about similar airstrikes is that this comes at a time when Ukraine is running criticially low on air defense missiles, and it probably has a higher than average number of casualties. As Super Dro said, it would be good to start a more centralized discussion about these articles rather than just make a decision for one of them every few months. Gödel2200 ( talk) 12:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As per Nintenga and others. With regards, Oleg Y. ( talk) 12:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - We also have articles for other terror attacks across Europe, such as Hanau shootings or 2016 Berlin truck attack, where less people were killed. User:Ecrusized failed to bring a valid reason for deleting this article.-- 3E1I5S8B9RF7 ( talk) 14:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    "User:Ecrusized failed to bring a valid reason for deleting this article."
    @ 3E1I5S8B9RF7: Perhaps open your eyes before so presumptuous? " WP:NOTNEWS. Insignificant, one off airstrike among hundreds, if not thousands of airstrikes in the span of the Russian invasion of Ukraine". Ecrusized ( talk) 14:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep. Many casualties, has significant coverage in various reliable sources. BilboBeggins ( talk) 22:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No sources except for routine news coverage. To address some of the keep arguments:
    1. A number of people were killed – Just an arbitrary number that is not in any way relevant to WP:N or WP:NEVENTS.
    2. Similar articles exist or they should all be discussed together – That doesn't mean this should be kept. The notability of this article has to stand on its own, and there's no guarantee that those article are about notable subjects.
    3. It's bad, a war crime, or a terrorist attack – WP:TDLI/ WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We're not here to pick sides in a real world conflict. In some !votes this approaches WP:SOAPBOXing, which is a conduct issue and should result in a warning.
    4. Its notability can be determined later – Then it can have an article later. We don't create articles about things that might be notable in the future.
    5. It's covered in reliable sources – WP:GNG requires that these be secondary sources, and WP:SUSTAINED/ WP:PERSISTENCE require that coverage continue beyond the news cycle.
I'm hoping that the closer will consider whether these keep !votes are valid, and I suggest that editors be reminded about WP:ATA when they use arguments that are listed there. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 02:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The keep votes are valid. Many similar articles indicate consensus.
Its notability is already established.
It is not a routine coverage cause it's a not routine event. BilboBeggins ( talk) 18:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep. I see it as that this article wins all the Wikipedia:Notability-points. I am also puzzled why this article is up for deletion when all these US high school Wikipedia articles exist of schools whom are neither notable nor special. I can not understand why somebody would think that Gilbert High School of Arizona has a bigger impact than this horrible attack on innocent people in Chernihiv. Not that I am advocating that there are too many Wikipedia articles about US high schools, I am saying that it is better to have too many articles (on Wikipedia) then too few. I also think that nobody should become used or in any way or "administrative" the death of innocent people by bombing in any war or conflict everywhere. — Yulia Romero •  Talk to me! 18:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES:

Before 2017, secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject both to the standards of notability, as well as those for organizations.

I don't know whether that specific school is notable or not, but this is generally why there is a lot of articles about schools where there otherwise wouldn't be. Presumably, AfD discussions would delete some/most of these schools, but if there's no reason for an AfD, many of them will remain MarkiPoli ( talk) 13:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is no indication of notability for this article. Russia has been indiscriminately striking civilians for a long while now, so one of these airstrikes is not independently notable. Like Thebiguglyalien said, many of the !keep votes include obvious WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, even one of them citing a US high school having an article as the reason why this should be kept. In addition, being a terrorist strike does not make it notable. There have been countless bombings in war zones that don’t have articles. Cutlass Ciera 21:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning keep or merge to a list article on comparable strikes in the conflict. I came here to close the discussion, but I find many of the "keep" !votes are poorly articulated in policy. Nonetheless, the article contains sources providing substantial coverage for the event, sufficient to meet the WP:GNG, and I don't know how coverage of an airstrike killing a dozen and a half civilians can be considered "routine". BD2412 T 02:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of sources per WP:GNG would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I don't see this article passing the WP:TENYEARTEST. Number of casualties, while tragic, does not indicate this attack being more notable, and nothing indicates this airstrike is anything special aside from lack of defense missiles. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

2022 Russian Aerospace Forces Antonov An-26 crash

2022 Russian Aerospace Forces Antonov An-26 crash (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and EVENTCRIT. Per WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence of lasting effects. No recent news on the topic so fails both CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:SUSTAINED. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 07:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Russia. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep The crash catches my attention because it it doesn't sound like a "normal" accident. To me it sounds the plane was shot out of the sky or blown up either accidentally or on purpose. Anyway, both ways, that would make it plausible that Russia tries to cover it up. Due to the contoversies and because I think it would be a shame if this information would be lost, I vote Weak keep. 82.174.61.58 ( talk) 08:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    If the plane were shot down, then the accident doesn't exactly warrant an article as it has already been mentioned in: List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War and List of Russian military accidents.
    Even then, the fact that there hasn't been any news related to this accident since 2022 already fails, as I've said, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:SUSTAINED.
    The event fails WP:INDEPTH and WP:DIVERSE as most sources were covered by russian media outlets and didn't receive significant or in-depth coverage to be considered notable. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 15:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    And the argument on losing the information is pretty weak per WP:LOSE as this article already fails multiple guidelines. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 15:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    In that case, instead of deleting: merge and redirect to List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War#Russian aircraft losses might be the best option. I would propose stating there (including removing the current "cashed" typo):

    Registration number RF-36074 crashed in Uryv-Pokrovka, Voronezh Oblast. The aircraft exploded in the air and fell between three villages. Fragments of the wreck scattered of over a large area. [1] According to the Ministry of Defense, the preliminary cause was equipment failure. [2] According to eyewitnesses the cause was possibly a shell hit. [3] All of the undisclosed number of occupants were killed, consisting of crew members and paratroopers. [3] Usually this type of aircraft has six crew members. [1]

    82.174.61.58 ( talk) 13:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    I feel like, judging from other entries in the article, that we should follow the same style therefore I would suggest keeping the entry as it is:

    Registration number RF-36074 cashed in Voronezh Oblast, killing an undisclosed number of occupants. Allegedly caused by a technical malfunction. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 14:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    I think a non-established style should never be regarded as more important than the quality of the prose or an inhibition of content. Note the current Russian state owned Tass source has an interest and might be unreliable. The sources I use are more journalistic and not one-sided. (And what I said, don’t keep the typo :) ) 82.174.61.58 ( talk) 16:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    The information is already there and it needs to be kept simple. I do agree with replacing the typo. I'm suggesting the following:

    Registration RF-36074 crashed in Voronezh Oblast, killing an undisclosed number of occupants. Preliminary reports indicate a technical malfunction.
    Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 14:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ a b "Транспортник прошел между селами" [Transporter passed between the villages]. Kommersant (in Russian). 2022-02-25. Archived from the original on 2022-12-18. Retrieved 2022-12-18.
  2. ^ "В Воронежской области потерпел крушение самолет Ан-26" [An-26 plane crashed in Voronezh region]. Mir 24 (in Russian). February 24, 2022. Archived from the original on 2022-12-18. Retrieved 2022-12-18.
  3. ^ a b "В Воронежской области упал самолет Су-25" [A Su-25 plane crashed in the Voronezh region]. vrntimes (in Russian). 25 February 2022. Retrieved 15 April 2024.
  • Comment I tried to improve the article with these edits. I expanded the article (among others witnesses reports, noted there were paratroopers onboard and the number of crew members) and added an extra source. However, this was reverted by Lachielmao ( talk · contribs). 82.174.61.58 ( talk) 13:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    To clarify I had no issue with the new content and sources added, but there was speculation used without a source as well as rewriting sections with worse grammar and writing prose. Lachielmao ( talk) 00:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Lachielmao: I don't understand why you say I added speculations without a source. See here the version after I expanded it. Everything was well referenced. (Bye the way, it sounds ambiguous when you're saying "I had no issue with the new content and sources added" because you removed it.) 82.174.61.58 ( talk) 12:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    It would be preferable if you discussed this on the talk page instead of this page as this is a discussion on whether to keep or delete the article, not to talk about whether or not these edits should be included. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 13:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge As per nom, this fails WP:SUSTAINED, and this crash doesn't seem to be any more notable than the many Russian aircraft crashes listed in the List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War that don't have their own article, so we should just merge the basic information about the crash there. Gödel2200 ( talk) 14:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun ( talk) 19:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The sole keep !vote was blocked as a sock, leaving us with the nom as an implied delete and one merge !vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts ( talk/ contributions) 00:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC) reply

2013 Rajya Sabha election in Tamil Nadu

2013 Rajya Sabha election in Tamil Nadu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was an indirect election, fails WP:Notability. I suggest it be either merged or redirected to the page, 2013 Rajya Sabha elections. — Hemant Dabral ( 📞 • ✒) 01:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

December 2009 Lower Dir mosque bombing

December 2009 Lower Dir mosque bombing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the sources provided are from time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar ( talk) 14:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2009. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 19:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun ( talk) 15:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette Edit! 16:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2009. It's depressing that these are almost routine, but there it is. Mangoe ( talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as suggested. Sadly, like shootings since 2012 in the United States, terrorist attacks in Pakistan around 2009 were all too common and part of a pattern. Bearian ( talk) 14:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

2013 Mardan funeral suicide bombing

2013 Mardan funeral suicide bombing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the sources provided are from June 2013. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar ( talk) 14:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 19:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun ( talk) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette Edit! 16:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013. Mangoe ( talk) 19:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as suggested. Sadly, like shootings since 2012 in the United States, terrorist attacks in Pakistan around 2013 were all too common and part of a pattern. Bearian ( talk) 14:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Dominica at the 2002 Commonwealth Games

Dominica at the 2002 Commonwealth Games (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously subject of a contested PROD. No secondary sources. Zero useful content. Previous consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominica at the 2010 Commonwealth Games was that these articles are not useful, particularly if they lack substantive content.

  • I am also nominating the following related pages:
Montserrat at the 2002 Commonwealth Games (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anguilla at the 2002 Commonwealth Games (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Antigua and Barbuda at the 2002 Commonwealth Games (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tuvalu at the 2002 Commonwealth Games (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saint Lucia at the 2002 Commonwealth Games (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mauritius at the 2002 Commonwealth Games (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

AusLondonder ( talk) 14:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Caribbean. AusLondonder ( talk) 14:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect all to 2002 Commonwealth Games. Athletes need to win a medal for their participation in an event to become notable - seems most reasonable to apply that to countries as well. BrigadierG ( talk) 18:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    I disagree with making that a blanket rule, but many of these countries that send a small number of participants won't generate coverage to pass WP:GNG. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 08:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you for notifying me. As I'm not sure what they could be replaced with if deleted, I would favour completing those articles rather than deleting them (and subsequently re-creating them with proper content). Either that, or put into Dominica at the Commonwealth Games (etc) the content that they should have, and turn them into a redirect. Aridd ( talk) 16:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • AusLondonder, did you add these additional articles to this nomination or did someone else? Whomever did it, please move this list of articles to the top of the AFD, above any comments, so that XFDcloser will see them as being part of this AFD nomination. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 08:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Liz: Thanks, will do. They were towards the top before, appears someone accidentally commented above them. AusLondonder ( talk) 09:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    AusLondonder, nicely done. Thank you. XFDcloser can be a little fussy. Liz Read! Talk! 02:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect all to "X at the Commonwealth Games" (where X is country name). Not enough coverage for separate articles, but they look to have 2002 mentioned in their parent articles. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 08:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all with prejudice to Anguilla at the Commonwealth Games, Antigua and Barbuda at the Commonwealth Games etc. XX at XX CG are often barebones article, almost templates, with no hope whatsoever for expansion to actual articles. The sensible solution is to merge on sight with the appropriate country pages. Geschichte ( talk) 08:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm not sure a redirect is necessary. The Montserrat page, for example, was averaging views in the single digits per month, not even statistically significant. Most internal links are via templates such as Template:Associations at the 2002 Commonwealth Games. I also don't particularly see how a redirect here fulfils the criteria at WP:RPURPOSE. Also taking a look at the template Associations at the 2002 Commonwealth Games about half the template are redlinks. Finally, the redirects are not plausible search terms. AusLondonder ( talk) 09:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or merge and which is the preferred target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk) 17:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • As a native of the island mentioned in this AFD discussion title (obvious disclosure), merge and source into Dominica at the Commonwealth Games (as an example). (If possible--for completion's sake--we may as well actually mention the names of the six athletes who participated back then.) -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merging just 2002 to the parent articles when no other years, even more successful years, are mentioned, doesn't seem like appropriate balance. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 01:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect all to 2002 Commonwealth Games. Little chance any coverage exists to satisfy GNG individually. JoelleJay ( talk) 01:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette Edit! 18:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

2023 Little Rock tornado

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

Article was not at all ready for mainspace and it currently fails WP:LASTING. Practically the entire article is a direct copy and paste from the meteorological synopsis and damage summary for this tornado in Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023. This article was created by me, in draftspace, doing a direct copy/paste of the damage summary so I could locate LASTING impacts (14,000 bytes). In this edit an anonymous user copy/pasted the entire meteorological synopsis section from the outbreak article (11,000 bytes). To note, the article is only 26,000 bytes. The entire article is a CONTENTFORK copy/paste, which was not ready for mainspace at all and was being edited by SOCKS. Either delete or draftify back like it was, but it clearly should not be an article right now. As a second note, the draft was submitted to AFC by a user who had not edited the article at all. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 13:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Move back to draft Why didn't you just move back to draft? This was unnecessary. Chess Eric 06:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ ChessEric: If it was moved rather than deleted, I would want it as a userspace draft not actual draftspace. The issue here is in the draftspace, SOCKS (both Andrew5 & Lokicat) find it and try to "improve it", plus even if it wasn't pure anonymous SOCKS involved, there is copyright issues involved (due to the copy/pasting mess) and people were able to get it through AfC from draft-space into mainspace without me, the original draft creator, even being aware. With all that, this is more of a TNT method (i.e. delete it and then redo it in userspace). Heck, the whole thing as it is right now is a copy/paste from the outbreak article so in 5 seconds, I could redo it in userspace. So yeah, don't think of this AfD as a true "delete it due to lack of notability", but more of a TNT request that is also using notability and the dang copyright and copy/paste issues as the backing for that TNT request. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 06:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
That's why you should have just put it in draft and rewritten or paraphrased some of it. Plus, the event details are fine and the section on the main page can be shortened. Plus, believe it or not, the SOCKS have actually made some helpful edits. The AfD was not the way to go. Plus, this tornado inflicted significant damage along its path in a major metropolitan area, so I think it will easily meet WP:Lasting. I'm not saying an article is guaranteed though. Chess Eric 13:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I don’t doubt that and again, I’m not saying this won’t get an article. For reference this entire edit is a copyright violation. Making it a draft again will not get rid of that. The SOCk reverted edit is also a copyright violation, as both are just a copy/paste of another Wikipedia article without any reference that content came from another article. That could be easily solved with an inter-wiki link, but it just makes the edit history weird and talk page weird. Legit, the history itself needs to be TNTed and then as this is at this point a near 100% direct copy/paste, I could create User:WeatherWriter/2023 Little Rock tornado with a copy/paste of the damage summary and basically restart the whole thing before the SOCKs came along. Did they help? Sure. Did they save maybe 5 minutes of work only though? Yes. It is better to literally TNT this, get rid of the copyright violation and just restart. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 14:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Doing a courtesy ping for ChessEric. Just for reference look at User:WeatherWriter/2023 Little Rock tornado. The new draft, made in minutes, is already 3,000 bytes larger than this article and doesn’t involve the SOCKs in the edit history nor the two very large copyright violations. The TNT is basically to clean-up the SOCKs and copyright violations from the edit history, since chances are high, the draft was pushed into mainspace by one of the two SOCKs well before any clean-up edits could occur. So yeah, don’t think of this AfD as anything with notability. This is truly a WP:TNT to remove the SOCKs from play. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 14:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some laundry-free discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'm confused by the nominator's stance here. You state "Either delete or draftify back like it was" but in the discussion comments, it looks like you are arguing against a move to Draft space. Please be clearer because if draftifying (to any previous version) is acceptable, then we can close this AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Any thoughts from more independent editors?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette Edit! 05:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Pashtunistan conflict

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

Already mentioned in similar page of Afghanistan-Pakistan border skirmishes, page isn't distinguishable for WP:GNG and is mostly background information rather then any relevant information about a major invasion.

The sources are also extremely lacking/poor, many being blog sites. Noorullah ( talk) 23:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Okay I'll give more information about the invasion and I think it's pretty notable enough to have it's own page Waleed Ukranian ( talk) 04:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
By renaming the article and changing the topic To Pashtunistan conflict the scope of article has changed, the article has known importance about the history of confrontation's between both countries, it should be given time as this requires a lot of work and hence shouldn't be deleted. Rahim231 ( talk) 13:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge to Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes, as per nomination. Samoht27 ( talk) 16:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Should all the Pakistan India skirmishes be merged into one, perhaps not it was the first round of skirmishes, second one was bajaur campaign , third one during soviet Afghan war and this is the fourth round on which the article is about, so I think it shouldn't be Waleed ( talk) 12:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article appears to be a collection of unrelated events without a coherent focus. The user who created this article has a history of producing articles with a mix of unrelated content. For example, the " 2024 Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes" article should focus on Pakistani airstrikes in Afghanistan and a minor border clash, but it contains various unrelated incidents. This inconsistency undermines the article's notability and clarity. Given these issues, the article does not meet Wikipedia's standards for structure and cohesion. which makes it unsuitable for retention. War Wounded ( talk) 00:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Proposed deletions

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Events&oldid=1221702426"