Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Events: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:28, 28 April 2024

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.

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted by Hey man im josh: (WP:G5 Created by a banned or blocked user (Cartoons2022) in violation of ban or block.) (non-admin closure)‎ AusLondonder (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 UK Independence Party leadership election

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

Lacking coverage in secondary sources. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:GNG. This is a very minor party with no elected representatives and only a couple of thousand members. AusLondonder (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, leaning on keep. WP:TOOSOON. Give it a bit more time and more sources and we can probably keep it. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 17:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON is an argument for why an article should not exist... AusLondonder (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, decidedly minor political event. TOOSOON applies to articles and not to nominations that come "too soon". The event is currently covered with two sentences in the UKIP article, and may be expanded to 9-10 sentences there. Geschichte (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable, no reason to warrant its own article, any more than for leadership elections of the continuing SDP. Anything on this page can by covered on the UKIP page. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Sindh Premier League. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Sindh Premier League

(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. Robo^Cric Let's chat 05:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. Robo^Cric Let's chat 05:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Robo^Cric Let's chat 06:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sindh Premier League Not enough coverage for separate season article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sindh Premier League Not enough coverage on its own.Hkkingg (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merger without tags‎ since Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit, Canada_convoy_protest#Lawsuits have similar arguments behind them. Note Freedom Convoy... is a redirect so not viable as a target. Editors can discuss the best target without a further relist. No case has been made for why the content cannot be retained as there aren't BLP or CV issues, just that it should not be a standalone. Star Mississippi 11:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zexi Li

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Events, Law, and Canada. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Lead plaintiff" in a class-action suit is practically random. Of course, lawyers will name as a lead plaintiff someone with a legally sympathetic case, but that is not a source of notability, and neither is anything else indicated in the article. BD2412 T 03:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Worth a mention on the Freedom Convoy class action lawsuit page. But shouldn't have a dedicated article. Clearly BLP1E (or TOOSOON if you want to call it that). Bueller 007 (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge/redirect to Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit, where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources that were not about the lawsuit. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event notes:
When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed. That person should be covered in an article regarding the event, and the person's name should be redirected to it.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: GhostOfDanGurney (talk · contribs), BD2412 (talk · contribs), and Bueller 007 (talk · contribs), would you support a selective merge/redirect to Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event? Cunard (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, I don't think that we need a separate article for the class action lawsuit. Canada convoy protest#Lawsuits covers this same lawsuit with about as much detail. A merge of the child article into the parent wouldn't make the parent much more larger than it already is, would prevent/fix any WP:CFORK issues, and is something I had been considering doing WP:BOLDly prior to it being brought up here.

That said, I'm not opposed to a redirect of Zexi Li to Canada convoy protest#Lawsuits, or if there is consensus to keep the child split from the parent, to Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit. Mostly as per WP:CHEAP as I don't think any content on Zexi Li is worth merging over. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for not being opposed to a redirect. I think the best redirect target for now is Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit, where she is mentioned. If editors conclude that the class action lawsuit topic should not have a standalone article, then I think the best redirect target would be Canada convoy protest#Lawsuits (once her name is mentioned there) as you stated. Cunard (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no notability in being the lead plaintiff in a notable case, and nothing here suggests there is any other basis for notability. I would suggest merging anything pertinent into Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit, but I see nothing worth merging.

I guess a redirect would be okay, if there's a thought that someone might be searching on the name of the litigant, but that's probably not needed. TJRC (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being okay with a redirect. This Google News link shows that Zexi Li has given numerous interviews to the media about the Canada convoy protest. This article calls her "spokesperson and the face of the lawsuit" against the convoy, so I think her name is a plausible search query. Several reasons from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Reasons for not deleting also apply such as "They have a potentially useful page history" (there is useful information about her activism about the Canada convoy that potentially could be merged) and they would "make the creation of duplicate articles less likely" (an article about a lawsuit's spokesperson is duplicate to an article about the lawsuit). Cunard (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have to disagree that there is a "useful page history." I'll reiterate that there is absolutely nothing that I would consider merging from this article, so preserving the page history is of zero importance to me. I strongly prefer hard deletion, at which point if people think "Zexi Li" is a plausible search term, a redirect can be created later. Any support for a redirect that I've expressed here should be considered weak. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GhostOfDanGurney on the page history. As I said above, although I don't object to the redirect, I see nothing worth merging, so there's no need to retain the page history, which is not potentially useful. TJRC (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second and fourth paragraphs of Zexi Li#Adult life would meet the due weight policy if merged to Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit. This is why I consider the content and history to be useful and worth preserving. Cunard (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because although there is a consensus that this shouldn't be a standalone article, there are several different target articles suggested here. Can we narrow this down to one to Redirect or Merge to?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am responding to the relisting comment asking about narrowing this down to one redirect or merge target. I think the best redirect or merge target is Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit since Zexi Li is already mentioned there and merging content (the second and fourth paragraphs of Zexi Li#Adult life) there would comply with the due weight policy. Cunard (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that details on her whereabouts are relevant and I'm not sure how WP:DUE applies to it. Canada convoy protest is a far better sourced article than either Zexi Li or Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit; merging Zexi Li is wholly unneeded when Canada convoy protest already covers everything relevant; her specific whereabouts (paragraph two) is covered by the text "...on behalf of downtown Ottawa residents over continuous air horn and train horn noise." and her specific testimony (paragraph four) is not relevant when looked at in the context of the article (it's obvious and well-sourced that Ottawa residents experienced varying levels of distress during the event).

This article should be deleted, with no merge or redirection. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zexi Li is the lead plaintiff of a class action lawsuit against the Canada convoy protest. The second and fourth paragraphs discuss her living in a high-rise building in Ottawa and her testimony about how she and other Ottawa residents were disrupted by the noise generated by the Canada convoy protest. This is the crux of her class action lawsuit against the Canada convoy protest, making the information relevant—due weight—for both Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit and Canada convoy protest#Lawsuits. Cunard (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit per WP:BLP1E. I agree with the above that there are select passages that could be merged elsewhere. If there is consensus that Canada convoy protest class action lawsuit should be merged and redirected, then the redirect can be changed to Canada convoy protest#Lawsuits. Yeeno (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and comments above Okmrman (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to this search, this comment is one of 67 AfD comments Okmrman made in the last hour. Cunard (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All with pretty much the same "per nom" rationale, too. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Challenge Cup semi final

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. But the nominator is suggesting draftification, is that option acceptable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Once again, this AFD needs more participation from editors, weighing in with their assessments of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha-Rajput conflict (1800-1820)

(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]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of terrorist incidents in the Philippines#2013. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Cotabato City bombing

AfDs for this article:

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

All the sources provided are from time of event. Almost 11 years after, no lasting impact or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. Also WP:NOTNEWS applies. LibStar (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Philippines. LibStar (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of terrorist incidents in the Philippines#2013. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of terrorist incidents in the Philippines#2013 per WP:ATD. --Lenticel ^(talk) 20:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Camp Evangelista. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Evangelista shooting

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

All the sources provided are from time of event. No lasting impact or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. Also WP:NOTNEWS applies. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Philippines. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the location it occurred in its own section at Camp Evangelista. Its closest claim to notability is making the army reevaluate some of their practices. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Camp Evangelista per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Camp Evangelista. More significant to that article. Borgenland (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Air Kasaï Antonov An-26B crash

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

Accident barely demonstrates notability. Fails the general notability guideline, the event criteria and doesn't demonstrate any lasting effects. Accident barely has any coverage whatsoever. I've only been able to find three news channels covering it including two in french and one in english: NBC news; Congo Planète (French); AllAfrica (French). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Africa, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 2027 Pan American Games

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

WP:TOOSOON. There is absolutely no need or use for this page so far away from the 2027 Games. The desire to create articles too early should be stamped out. It won't be any more useful in six months either, negating the desirability of draftification. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 South American U-17 Women's Championship and many others. Geschichte (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, and Chile. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Completely hasty in relation to the event. Svartner (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way WP:TOOSOON. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, and there won't be any updates for 2 years. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Far WP:TOOSOON. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Terrorism in Yemen. Owen× ☎ 11:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Bin Salman mosque bombing

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, Islam, and Yemen. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: subsequent reactions to the event are presented in the zh.wiki page, here is one source: [2] where the attack is described as "a dangerous escalation in the northern conflict". Broc (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That one source is from the day after the attack, so is part of the news cycle, WP:NOTNEWS. We need lasting coverage to see an WP:EFFECT. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 2 May 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]

Delete per Nom, or as ATD, Merge to Terrorism in Yemen per Parakanyaa. Local decision if "under its own section" or not. Does not meet GNG. Rationale: Wikipedia does not need to be a world newspaper on every incident, helping add or provide legitimacy to terrorism, regardless of notability. They do not need any help. Articles such as this, or like 2007 Marib suicide car bombing, with coverage when it was breaking news, but no real significant coverage as an event deserving an encyclopedia article. Makes too much sense: The state of the article does not determine notability and AFD is not cleanup, HOWEVER: Once notability (test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article) is questioned the solution is evidence by multiple (more than one or two) reliable, published (See: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Good research and WP:Reliable sources#Definition of a source), independent sources. Most of the time news articles are meant to be shocking, or otherwise tantalizing as opposed to being neutral that is supposed to be not only a mandate but a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pakistan audio leaks controversy

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:22, 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have asked Samee at User talk:Samee#AFD contribution about the rationale behind their contribution. Thincat (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samee has not edited since 2 May. Possibly they received a software upgrade that was unsuccessful. Thincat (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been contacted (not by Samee) on email about this AFD but if I have any remarks I'll leave them here. Thincat (talk) 09:43, 14 May 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, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There appears to be ongoing coverage of the event into 2024 [4] as an example, but I'm not sure which sources from the geographical area are considered RS. Dawn has coverage about it, which I think is a RS [5]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2023#April. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Khyber bombing

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. A discussion about a possible Redirection can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United States of America Computing Olympiad

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 15:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Education, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:47, 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Staraction's sources. I feel there aren't too many sources outside of WP:PRIMARY, but what they provided, looks like it's enough. Conyo14 (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017. Daniel (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Chaman suicide bombing

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Pakistan. 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]

Merge: per PARAKANYAA. Queen of ♡ | speak 03:19, 23 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]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017. Daniel (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Dera Ismail Khan bombing

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Pakistan. 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]

Merge or delete: per nom; NOTNEWS. Queen of ♡ | speak 03:18, 23 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]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ and no indication of any forthcoming input Star Mississippi 21:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017 Peshawar bombings

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Pakistan. 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Hurricane Hugo. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOAA Flight 42

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Barbados, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 18 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]

Redirect and delete, possibly WP:SALT. This is such a minor incident, with no loss of life, as to be a footnote. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The next few months will likely provide more clarity regarding lasting notability as a standalone event. Owen× ☎ 21:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024 Chernihiv missile strike

(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]

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 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 17 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]
It's not about other stuff exists, it's a about existing practices in English Wikipedia. BilboBeggins (talk) 14:29, 2 May 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]

I can see this article passing TENYEAR, or TWENTYYEARTESTS. BilboBeggins (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable event covered by many news sources. Does not fail WP:NEVENT. Batmanthe8th (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another attack in the ongoing conflict, I don't see this as notable. Sadly, these events happen almost daily now. Oaktree b (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the deadliest attack in weeks. The timeline and most important events of greatest conflict since end of World War are significant and notable for encyclopedia, without a doubt. BilboBeggins (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep but if it's merged, a good place would be Chernihiv strikes (2022–present). Niafied (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First Battle of Lahore (1759)

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

The sources provided on the page show no mention for a battle in "August 1759", the sources only show that Ahmad Shah even began his campaign in September 1759, reaching Lahore and then taking it in November. [6] Noorullah (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 12:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless proper sourcing is found. The sourcing on Urdu wiki isn’t any help. Mccapra (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sigh, not another one of these. We might have to look into the others at Battle of Lahore (disambiguation), too. -- asilvering (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY.

"Sabaji maintained his position with great valour and strength, inflicted a crushing defeat upon Jahan Khan, who was severely wounded and lost his son in the action. Jahan Khan’s return to Peshawar in discomfiture so roused the fury of the Shah." Excerpts from New history of the Marathas vol 1. p-408
"Dattaji Sindhia progressed slowly through Malwa. He appointed Sabaji Sindhia to occupy Lahore ( March, 1759 ). The Sikhs did not check the Marathas, but co-operated with them in driving away the Afghans under Jahan Khan across the Indus. Sabaji’s forces penetrated as far as Peshawar." Excerpts from A Study Of Eighteenth Century India Vol. 1. p-342

Additional comments- Renaming the article to the Capture of Lahore or even the Maratha occupation of Lahore (per sources) would be better. Though these sources are enough for keeping this article still additional sources would be appreciated.

Sudsahab (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't even seem to be a battle at all.

Per Sarkar, it states that the Afghans had evacuated Lahore, meaning that there was no "battle" for the city in April 1758. [7] Also corroborated by Hari Ram Gupta: [8]

The Afghans returned in October 1759 and re-occupied Lahore. [9]

There's no mention of a battle in August 1759 whatsoever.

Jahan Khan's battle per this source: [10] Doesn't seem to be mentioned at Lahore at all, nor do the sources you've shown imply this, but rather is "Thereafter the invaders overran Attock, then crossed the Indus, and threatened the historic fort of Rohtas on the left bank of the Jhelum. By that time, Sabaji Patel (Schinde) reached the place with fresh troops and a large number of Sikh fighters, who had made common cause with him against the Afghan infiltrators. The Afghans were defeated by the combined forces of the Marathas and the Sikhs in a pitched battle, in which Jahan Khan lost his son and was himself also wounded."

So again, this shows this was not a battle at Lahore. Noorullah (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[11] Does not show a battle at Lahore, but mentions Jahan Khan's defeat at an undisclosed location, and only later talks about how Ahmad Shah re-occupied Lahore (presumably in his 1759 October campaign). Noorullah (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I proposed renaming this article, either it should be Jahan Khan invasion of Rohtas or Battle of Rohtas. Coming to Sarkar's reliability which is questionable. Also see WP:RAJ, we can't rely on him as long as we have better sources for the notability of the Battle of Lahore (Battle of Rohtas?).

You do realise [this|https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.98175/page/n361/mode/2up] work of Hari Ram Gupta (published in 1944) is relatively older than his cited work in the article Marathas and Panipat. (published in 1961)? It would be obvious that older sources might not contain more information around this certain event, this is WP:AGE MATTERS.

In Marathas and Panipat. p-101 tells us: Jahan Khan rushed to Peshawar, captured Attock, and then advanced towards Rohtas. Sabaji sought help from the Sikhs. The united forces marched against Jahan Khan, whom they encountered on the other side of the Jehlam. In a fierce engagement the Afghan general suffered heavily. He lost his son and a large number of troops, himself receiving several wounds
[12] p-260, It also propounds: Thereafter, the invaders overran Attock, then crossed the Indus and threatened the historic fort of Rohtas on the left bank of the Jhelum. By that time, Sabaji Patel reached the place with fresh troops and a large number of the Sikh fighters, who had made a common cause with him against the Afghan infiltrators. The Afghans were defeated by the combined forces of the Marathas and the Sikhs in a pitched battle, in which Jahan Khan lost his son and was himself also wounded. Note Rohtas,Pitched battle and fierce engagement in both of the quotations.

Sudsahab (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But why have a separate article for this at all? It doesn't seem that the sources are discussing it in that way. They're describing it as part of an overall campaign. That tells me the best place for this information is somewhere like Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao, or whichever other article might fit better. -- asilvering (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already quoted the sources which discussed it thoroughly. And no it's not part of Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao, not to be confused with Capture of Lahore which occurred in 1758 by Raghunath Rao. If merging is an option then I'd suggest merging it to Afghan-Maratha War. But my vote is still keep until someone gives more inputs. Sudsahab (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sudsahab, if it isn't part of Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao, you should fix the infobox, since that's what it says. -- asilvering (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Sudsahab (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:HEY and to allow further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that the "WP:HEY" was Sudsahab referring to their own edits to the article (seems a bit rich to say this about yourself?), and they have since been blocked as a sockpuppet. So no one is actually arguing this meets the WP:HEY standard. -- asilvering (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol. Noorullah (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Dexter Reed

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

Non notable event Jax 0677 (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This has been widely reported in reliable sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - WP:NOTNEWS. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Editors are encouraged...to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events", per WP:NOTNEWS. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Police, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A brief burst of news coverage is not sufficient to establish notability. Wikipedia is not a database of murders or other news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The surge of coverage occurred weeks after the event. There are sources that analyse the event as well. And there are still sources published as recently as 2 hours ago, definitely sustained coverage. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red pilled media has been all over this because the left has been asking the same stupid question: "how can police justify nearly 100 shots, when all Reed did was empty his clip at a cop first?" Both sides will milk this for a long time. (Grady Judd said, "That's all the bullets we had, or we would have shot him more".) Magnolia677 (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of sources. Would meet WP:GNG. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be widely reported. Inexpiable (talk) 15:47, 21 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!} 21:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WE&H; sources are still coming in. Queen of ♡ | speak 03:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: many reliable sources and significant in-depth coverage FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus without prejudice against selective merge. Owen× ☎ 16:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Alaska Democratic presidential caucuses

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

Unnotable election that happened by voice vote with only Biden on the ballot. Can be sufficiently covered with one sentence at 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AFAIK, we keep the primaries & caucuses pages of both major political parties. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But does the sourcing for this voice vote meet WP:GNG? I can't find anything more than passing mentions. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our practice is that we keep these primaries & caucuses pages, of the major parties. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What policy or guideline is that supported by? AusLondonder (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Alaska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska - Lack of any opposition candidates/ballot options makes the existence of a standalone page not necessary. Longestview (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. The election and information surrounding it is basically nonexistent so the case for keeping it up is a difficult one to make. DukeOfDelTaco (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable election. There is no reason to remove the article because of the method of voting. There is coverage of this from the LA Times, ABC News, PBS, Whitter Daily News which republished an AP article which describes in detail the procedure of the election in Alaska. Cleary there are enough reliable sources to help the article. Finding this took less than a minute. I don't see how one can say the information about the election in Alaska is nonexistent or the fact there is only one person on the ballot makes it less noteworthy. The articles for Delaware and Flordia primaries were redirected because no vote was held since Biden was the only candidate per state law, but in Alaska an election still happened. This is not a well-researched Afd nomination that was brought forward. The nominator's only reason for nominating is the method of voting that was held and hasn't provided where there were passing mentions. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles you listed seem to be mostly routine coverage. Especially the ABC News article which does little more than list non existent results. This and this are probably the only sources I would argue do better than just passing or routine coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read Alaska is not a reliable source. It has a right-wing bias if you clearly see the way the article and all articles on there are written. So what if they are routine coverage? By that logic, you will need to delete or redirect all primary articles because they have news sources that cover election results. If you read the LA Times and Whitter repost of an AP article, you can see it isn't passing as it goes into detail as to how the caucuses were held. Your argument for passing mentions is not backed by the sources I listed above. There is coverage of the caucuses from reliable sources. When you nominate an article for deletion, you should prove that there isn't enough coverage which you didn't do. Your nomination is malformed and not backed by any evidence as is the case with the redirect votes. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources because all the sources I listed are reliable and prove notability of the article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ROUTINE for what I mean by routine coverage. What I meant more that is the level of depthness for those articles is what I would consider the bar to be for sustained, in-depth coverage. Also, I would greatly appreciate if you toned down some of your comments, you're coming off as very hostile. Lets try to keep this disagreement civil. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Onus is on you to prove your claims when you start the nomination. You must provide facts and evidence for your nomination. You haven't provided anything to the contrary from the sources I found which proves notability. This does not violate any routine coverage guideline or policy because there are sources that go in-depth about the caucuses which I have already explained which do. First step should have been to start a discussion on the talk page of the article instead of trying to redirect it and then nominating it for deletion. Xfd is not for expressing what feeling you have about a source. You must prove that sourcing is inadequate enough for the article not to be its own page. As it states on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives: "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." All the links I found was through a quick Google search. And passing mentions along with the in-depth sourcing that does exist is still okay to be enough for the article to be sourced and all the links I found are reliable. Therefore, the article has merit to remain as is. All that needs to be done is to add the information I have provided. Not remove the article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I'm the creator of the article, and I will watch everyone's opinion and do not do anything. Memevietnam98 (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with decent coverage and notable election, despite no opposition. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Both Biden and Philips made the ballot, but Philips withdrew his presidential campaign. Maybe add him to the infobox just like Nikki Haley is on the Republican primaries infoboxes despite having also withdrawn her campaign. Daniel (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Philips was not on the ballot, he was removed after he withdrew. It was a voice vote with just Biden on the ballot. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus, similar to what we have done to other primaries this election where no other candidates appeared on the ballot. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 00:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus per Esolo5002, Longestview, DukeOfDelTaco, Politicdude, and WP:NOPAGE. Coverage is not sufficient to warrant a standalone article. Sal2100 (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska: The standalone is not necessary and is not notable. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia will look biased if they delete this just because there is only one candidate. Even worse, maybe ridiculous, when the one you're eliminating is the sitting President of the United States. An election result is an election result, regardless of how many candidates participated. It's Wikipedia's written record. Wikipedia kept the results of the Republican primary with name recognition and images of their candidates. Likewise, looks biased just as bad if the Democrat results don't get its own page, but is a redirect. Not good, conveniently eliminating the image and returns of Biden. It's in Wikipedia's best interests to keep both. — Maile (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable election and other reasons above. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 06:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus. There's nothing to really say for the uncontested event. It's standard practice not to need separate pages like this and I see no issue of bias; we should be merging a lot more of them even if contested. We are still covering what happened, just not on an unnecessary standalone page. Reywas92^Talk 14:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable article with reliable sources, there is no reason to delete it. Biden was the only one on the ballot doesn't matter, in Wikipedia rules about Wikipedia article just only concentrate about sources and how notable about it.Geotubemedia (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus Some very unconvincing keep arguments above ranging from "Wikipedia will look biased" to simply asserting that "we keep the primaries & caucuses pages of both major political parties". None of these arguments are supported by policy, nor common sense. Sources presented are very much trivial coverage and I see no reason why this cannot be covered as part of the main article. AusLondonder (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus as above. It isn't "because there's only one candidate" but because it wasn't in any sense a real election. This was as much a real election as those in North Korea are. Not only could delegates not vote for anyone else, they couldn't vote uncommitted, abstain, or vote against Biden. At no stage of this process was anyone participating actually allowed to do anything but vote for Biden or delegates who would have to vote for Biden. 76.6.209.95 (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has a plethora of reliable third-party sources. How is it not notable? The result was covered by news outlets around the country. The reasons offered for deleting this article don't make any sense. For example, why does it matter that Biden was the only one on the ballot? That's just a subjective personal gripe that doesn't relate to the usual standards for deletion. This should obviously be kept. — 4idaho — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.252.37.120 (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 29, was originally closed as a BADNAC. I do wish to note explicitly and for the record that consensus is not achieved by counting votes. This is a discussion, and consensus can be found even when participation is roughly equal, if one side's arguments is stronger. However, this needs to be contextualized and rationalized in a closing statement by an administrator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge Per WP:MERGEREASON, merging doesn't necessarily mean that this caucus isn't notable, just that there isn't enough to say about it to justify its own article. This caucus was essentially a non-event, and the "article" is mostly infoboxes, sidebars, and other template cruft. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the tables were turned, and it was the other party's nominee who had this caucus result of being the only candidate and not garnering many votes, how would people be reacting? I assume good faith here, but let's be consistent with the candidates. — Maile (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've merged from the other party as well, not all of us care about American politics in a partisan manner. SportingFlyer T·C 03:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge We've been redirecting elections such as these which aren't quite notable enough for their own article - while there's obviously some coverage, there's not much to say and they basically violate WP:NOTNEWS and our event guidelines while being able to be covered adequately elsewhere on the site. SportingFlyer T·C 03:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge Adds no value to WP as a teeny stub. A trivial uncontested primary of this type can be easily covered in one sentence in the main article. Feels like people create these non-articles purely to check off the redlinks in Template:2024 Republican primaries, but many of those links just need to be a redirect to "<Year> United States presidential election in <state>#Republican caucuses". 2024 Nebraska Republican presidential primary falls into the same category. I'd go as far as to say that being a section in the main <election in state> article should be the default, with caucuses only getting a standalone article when there's some major controversy or it was a bigger/more heavily contested primary. Even minorly contested primaries like 2024 Washington Republican presidential primary (Trump vs. Haley) are really just a results box that could be as easily slotted into the main article and fall under WP:REDUNDANT. Hemmers (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War#Fixed-wing aircraft 2. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Russian Aerospace Forces Antonov An-26 crash

(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

^ ^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.
^ "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.
^ ^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]

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) 16:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War. I see nothing in applied or found sources which makes this aircraft incident more notable than any other crash on the list. BusterD (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is against keeping. From among the ATD proposals, the redirect to the list of floods can't be implemented because the topic is not mentioned there, and the merger to the locality has little support. Sandstein 15:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Clarkson floods

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

This event does not meet WP:NEVENTS. This is only a minor flood with minor damage and no injuries. This will not have a lasting effect. Steelkamp (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Steelkamp (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom. No lasting impact to meet WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not seem to be the sort of event with enduring notability. – Teratix ₵ 09:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant event that took place in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.189.11.78 (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being "significant" is not a criterion for notability. You need to demonstrate how it meets WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is significant about it? Will people care about it in ten years? – Teratix ₵ 07:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Clarkson, Western Australia per nom's rationale. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 06:33, 15 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!} 07:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:EVENTCRIT: "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." Not a particularly notable natural disaster. AusLondonder (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as with many unfortunate incidents or minor disasters, relevance is typically limited to the affected region/country. Without WP:SUSTAINED coverage, ideally internationally, there is no demonstrating it has a WP:LASTING effect and therefore, cannot be adjusted to be notable. I wouldn't object a condensed version being merged into Clarkson, Western Australia. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I object as well to merging with Clarkson, Western Australia. The floods covered more than just Clarkson. The article claims that Clarkson, Butler, Joondalup, Currambine, Ridgewood and Mindarie were all flooded or at least received warnings. I still think a straight up delete would be the best course of action. Steelkamp (talk) 10:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I also oppose merge. LibStar (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was more thinking that I would not have any particular concerns if it were mentioned it in an article relevant to the region, rather than a full-on entire merge (hence "condensed version"). I am not familiar with the geography of the region, but appreciate that if it affected multiple places, then mentioning in only one article would not always be appropriate (although the title of the article itself mentions Clarkson, so this seemed to be the worst affected I would imagine).

Fundamentally, my preference is in agreement to delete, which I !voted for. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Floods in Australia - I agree that its not notable on its own, and that it shouldn't be redirected/merged with the Clarkson article, but there is another reasonable redirect target --DannyS712 (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even mentioned on that list, and why should it be? It's not a very significant flood. – Teratix ₵ 07:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, 11 days after the flood and no one is talking about it anymore. It has been out of the news since 1 day after the flood. This flood simply is not very signficant. Steelkamp (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect And add to Floods in Australia, per DannyS712.12.11.109.231 (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Rajya Sabha election in Tamil Nadu

(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]

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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 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]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2009. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009 Lower Dir mosque bombing

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, Islam, and Pakistan. 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]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Mardan funeral suicide bombing

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Pakistan. 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]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Hayatabad suicide bombing

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

The 2 sources provided are from time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/basically redirect to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017, Pakistan has a lot of terrorism and is hard to search for sources for so if there are actually later sources in Urdu I would not oppose it being an article again someday (but I highly doubt that is the case). PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:04, 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!} 00:19, 17 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) 02:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge, searching for the events bring up other similar events before it. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ on a particular target which is understandably unsatisfying, but with multiple potential targets and no indication a consensus is going to solidify around one, there is no action for a closer here. There is a consensus that these should be covered within the scope of the 2022 games or that of their country's participation in the games. That discussion can be continued editorially without concern that this AfD precludes that. Star Mississippi 14:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dominica at the 2002 Commonwealth Games

(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:

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. Joseph2302 (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. Joseph2302 (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]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ due to lack of participation (WP:NOQUORUM). Despite three relists, once socks are struck there is insufficient participation here to find a consensus. This close is with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Daniel (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Little Rock tornado

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to draft Why didn't you just move back to draft? This was unnecessary. ChessEric 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. ChessEric 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]

Redirect to the section in Tornado outbreak of March 31–April 1, 2023. We are becoming way too lax in giving individual tornadoes article. In no way should this, 2023 Pasadena–Deer Park tornado or 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado have standalone articles. Stand alone articles should only be if the information absolutely cannot fit in the section, such as the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado. I highly doubt that this article can be much more than a WP:CFORK of the section. The readable prose is around 53,000 bytes, which per WP:ARTICLESIZE puts it in a grey area if a split is needed. But I don’t think this is the tornado, given its limited impact. A redirect to the section is a good idea because it’s highly unlikely this tornado will achieve notability outside of the tornado outbreak. 148.76.84.29 (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC) (Confirmed and now-blocked SOCK) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Due to the copyright violations as mentioned above, we could either do a delete and redirect closure, or WP:RD1 the copyright violations. 148.76.84.29 (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)~~ (Confirmed and now-blocked SOCK) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:59, 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]

As per usual, WeatherWriter is endlessly yapping about irrelevant crap that makes the discussion impossibly hard to follow. His rants can be found in numerous AFDs and discussions, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midwestern U.S. floods and tornado outbreak of June 2021. User should likely be topic banned for disruptive editing at this point. 99.196.129.143 (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC) (SOCK strikethrough.) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just semi'ed it so we reach a consensus without socks. I have relisted this but don't consider myself involved. Star Mississippi 00:37, 26 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]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I was considering a Merge but we have an editor objecting to a Merge so I'll close as Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pashtunistan conflict

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan and Pakistan. Noorullah (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check it out brother, now it's completely rebranded and is far more notable than it was, I gave more conflicts and stuff like that Waleed Ukranian (talk) 07:46, 5 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]

Delete: This article doesn't meet the notability guidelines and appears to be a collection of unrelated events thrown together to create an article on a subject that isn't connected to the events discussed. Additionally, the author changed the page's title from its original one to a completely different title after the AFD was initiated. This suggests uncertainty about which title is appropriate for the content, indicating doubt about the notability of the original title. They then shifted the article to a new title, perhaps in an attempt to establish notability under a different name. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't understand, how are they unrelated M Waleed (talk) 03:17, 25 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]

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

Proposed deletions

[kommer-1] "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.

[VRN-3] "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.

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ==Events==
 <!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 UK Independence Party leadership election}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2024_Sindh_Premier_League}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zexi Li}}