Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Events|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Events.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Events

Pilgrimage (demoparty)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The only thing I found was this webpage (not article) on The Salt Lake Tribune's website. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli ( talk) 15:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Western Canada Youth Parliament

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

Fails GNG. Nothing in Google news or books. Nothing when searching in cbc.ca. Only primary sources in plain Google search. LibStar ( talk) 04:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

FIM Women's Motorcycling World Championship

FIM Women's Motorcycling World Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe this meets WP:GNG. Little significant coverage in independent sources. T v x1 22:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • The first season of this newly established World Championship is due to begin in just under two weeks. Coverage has been limited to motorsports-focused outlets such as Speedweek ( example here), Eurosport ( example here), and others ( Road Racing World, Paddock-GP.com). Deletion is entirely unwarranted, given that this is a World Championship sanctioned by the same governing body that oversees events such as MotoGP, WorldSBK, and others. Mathias327 ( talk) 07:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Well, to be clear, notability isn't inherited from parent topics ( WP:NOTINHERITED) nor is it conferred by equivalent topics ( WP:OTHERSTUFF). There does seem to be some coverage at the moment, maybe not enough for an article, but there will almost certainly be enough coverage in two weeks' time. Is it worth it to delete or draftify this article and then recreate it in, say, a month? I don't think so. Arguably it doesn't pass notability standards right now, but we ought to be pragmatic here. 5225C ( talk •  contributions) 09:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Interesting nomination. But disappointing, per 5225C and Mathias327. This is what happens when inexperienced, over-zealous editors 'pirate' what others have written; sometimes it's almost like a competition - who can get it on to WP first. I often see this with racing deaths, contrary to wp notmemorial, when there is nothing/insufficient previously written about the racer, being an also-ran. See Paul Dobbs, Victor Steeman, Billy Redmayne, Dean Berta Viñales.
I'm sure you're all aware that I wrote it, purposely as a section ( in February 2024) as nothing had then (yet) happened. I'm equally sure you've read what I wrote here, being toosoon, permastub, crystal - "There is simply no need for a separate article at this premature stage".
Having established that, I disagree that it should be draftified; such action, whilst admitting that some coverage may be available soon, could be regarded as pointy. However the mechanism, it's there, so yes, pragmatism in that redirect (back to) section may be just a retrograde/administrative move (I am an inclusionist).
Keep. Considering what's happening with women's participation in certain sports, and the positive discrimination to enable them, then I think the article is a 'net-positive' to the project, although, considering the nationalities of the participants, will likely be of more-interest to European, non-English first speakers. Considering positive discrimination, I can cite WIR (with which I disagree, being a determined effort to skew the natural balance).-- 82.13.47.210 ( talk) 23:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Conquest of Mandaran

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG as there are no reliable sources which provide significant coverage of this event or mentions the event as Conquest of Mandaran. it relies heavily on Non- WP:RS sources. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 09:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military and India.
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Reviewed all the sources before they were removed and all are poor and fail WP:HISTRS like a source where N.K. Sahu is an editor of a book that was contributed by William Wilson Hunter, WP:RAJ and sources by Nitish K. Sengupta who was an IAS officer in 1957 and served as the Revenue Secretary of the Government of India. No source has a paragraph enough to give depth on the Conquest of Mandaran Page fails WP:GNG. RangersRus ( talk) 23:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Conquest of Hadoti

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

Another "Conquest of X" article with 2-3 lines of passing mention: "In the battle that took place at Maholi many Hadas were killed and their families were brought to Mandu. The fort was handed over to Qadam Khan." Clearly it fails SIGCOV, not enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 10:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I found this, which has a whole page dedicated to the subject at page 122. Also search on Google Scholar locates "Sharma, R.K., 1985. MILITARY SYSTEM OF THE KOTA STATE (C-1250 to 1947 AD). Скорина и скориниана, 13, p.65." I can't view the second one so I can't get any comment on how much content is devoted to the subject. TarnishedPath talk 11:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ TarnishedPath that is the whole different event around 1436. The whole page except the last para deals with the conquest of Hadoti by Rana Kumbha, It's the only last para of 4 lines which covers relevant content:
    The political situation soon changed, when Mahmud Khilji came to throne in Malwa, He had undertaken several expeditions to bring Hadoti under his sphere of influence. Kumbha adopted a successful policy to give sufficient support to the Hadas against the invasions of the Sultan of Malwa. And that too doesn't describe the outcome. As I said it fails SIGCOV and it's just a meagre part of a different event. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 13:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    You're making an argument for updating the article, not deleting it. TarnishedPath talk 13:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    No I'm not. What I meant is that the given source is completely unrelated to this event which happened in 1459 not 1436 per above given source. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 15:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

New Zealand Comic con

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

This article is substantially covered in a subsection of Armageddon Expo, which this article links to in the lede. An uninformed reader may draw the conclusion that this is the article about Armageddon, which it is not. Removing the non-encyclopedic parts of this article would render it a copy of the Armageddon subsection.

This article was nominated for PROD previously but had as far as I can tell only little opposition; the reason was that it was a unique event. MrSeabody ( talk) 08:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Measure of Music (conference)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The sources are almost entirely PR-based or non-independent and affiliated with the conference and its founder. No actual in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, just press releases and blog posts. Previously PRODed by another editor, disputed by page creator. — Ganesha811 ( talk) 11:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Organizations. — Ganesha811 ( talk) 11:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Ganesha811: Hi, I'm the author of this article. Measure of Music (MoM) is not a company or organization, it's an annual event – do you think it shouldn't be held to the same standards as Wikipedia:NORG? Is there something more comparable we can explore? Many of the peer articles on the main Category:Music conferences list have the same caliber of PR based sources, which is where I got the idea to make this contribution. For reference, I mirrored other international reoccurring events like M for Montreal, Japan Music Week, Midwest Music Summit, and International Music Conference while researching and building this article for MoM. Thanks for your suggestions. Copeland.powell ( talk) 12:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    1. Ganesha811 had earlier suggested two criteria against which such a recurring event can be evaluated. Both require "significant coverage", see WP:SIGCOV. Let's check the very first source (musebycl.io): it is a site self-declared as "Home to Creative Marketing, Advertising News", clearly fails the "Reliable" criterion. Attempt to view the content (to other editors: disable the Javascript first!) is blocked by an enormous pop-up ad. Past the ad, an interview by the founder, clearly fails "Independent of subject". We are all volunteers here, very few people would check any further. I did: the second source (Technical.ly) is by the founder herself.
    2. Arguing that some other articles are not properly sourced either generally does not work, see WP:WHATABOUT (maybe they should eb deleted, too? maybe better sources exist, just not added to the article yet?).
    Викидим ( talk) 17:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and checking some of the references above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Викидим ( talk • contribs) 17:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

22nd Battle of Raigam Salpiti

22nd Battle of Raigam Salpiti (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Main article deleted as it was an uncontested PROD. Unfortunately can't PROD this as the PROD was contested. Clear WP:GNG and WP:NCRIC fail. AA ( talk) 12:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Deadliest Crash: The Le Mans 1955 Disaster

Deadliest Crash: The Le Mans 1955 Disaster (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also for the same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Prix: The Killer Years, by the same filmmaker.

Contested PROD. Editor added sources, only to add three which is not enough to assert notability of this non-notable television film to 2024 standards per WP:NF. One of those is WP:PRIMARY and the other is a TV guide recommendation. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 13:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Why should 3 sources not be enough to assert notability? How many do you wish? Or did I misunderstand and is it not the number but the nature of the sources you are not satisfied with? Anyway, you have now 6 (or 4 if you consider that 2 do not count (but a TV guide recommendation should imv count)) and they seem significant enough. Thank you. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 13:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Cunard added sources and deproDed the page (same nom). The coverage including critical commentary may be judged significant enough to show this is notable. A redirect to the event itself should be considered anyway (in a In film section). Also see https://www.cararticles.co.uk/uk-deadliest-crash-the-1955-le-mans-disaster.html (a review on what is technically a blog; the reviewer has 3340 articles listed there...) and https://www.autoweek.com/racing/more-racing/a1813276/deadliest-crash-dives-1955-le-mans-catastrophe/ or https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/the-rivalry-that-caused-the-deadliest-crash-in-motorsport-1973804.html among other things. (that might seem more than enough for GNG or for NFILM so MAYBE that implies that the other Afd, if that is indeed the same case, as the nominator states, should have had another outcome with a little bit of work...) - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Nobody could dispute that Cunard did a good job with the sourcing but even WP:BEFORE turned out nothing which led to this AfD. Reviewing the new sources above, Autoweek speaks little of the documentary, I cannot see if that is worthy of a review. Independent did better, a bit. And again, it talks about the disaster too. I cannot see how blogs count as reliable sources also. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 20:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    CarArticles : SPS expert sources may count or at least may be used.
    Autoweek speaks little of the documentary,? Autoweek's article's title is 'The Deadliest Crash' Dives Into The 1955 Le Mans Catastrophe which clearly means its main focus is on the film....It does speak sufficiently of it to be considered significant: Originally aired in 2010, the documentary above dives into the background of the race with some spectators and participants, but spends it the second half talking about the accident in graphic detail. For motorsports fans who haven't already seen it, this hourlong documentary is a must-watch -- note that viewers might find some of the footage disturbing.
    it talks about the disaster too. Obviously, yes, it's because the film is a documentary based on newly-found footage. They describe the new "evidences" as seen in the film.....
    The Independent article subhead is Newly found footage puts blame on British driver for a 1955 disaster that killed up to 120 at Le Mans....
    Anyway, I've added quotes from 2 of these sources to the page too + a mention in the The Routledge Companion to Automobile Heritage, Culture, and Preservation.
    Feel free to add more: some extra coverage is listed here but it's only identified and it implies some search, for which I won't have time; and also as I think I will leave it at that, as I consider I have done, here and on the page, what I could to show the film meets the requirements for notability and even mentioned an ATD. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, France, and United Kingdom. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as the article is now referenced to reliable sources coverage such as the Independent, Daily Telegraph, Autoweek and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Radford, Ceri (2010-05-17). "Worried About the Boy, BBC Two, Review". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

      The review notes: "At the opposite end of the subtlety spectrum was The Deadliest Crash: the Le Mans 1955 Disaster (Sunday, BBC Four), a documentary exploring the infamous motoring smash-up which killed at least 80 spectators (the exact figure is uncertain) when a car flew off the track into a packed grandstand. It didn’t take long to get to the point. Death! Disaster! Flying debris! Burning bodies! As soon as the opening credits had faded we were assaulted with archive images and eyewitness accounts of the whole gruesome panoply. It was like a cross between a video nasty and a mind-boggling trip back in time to a past that wasn’t just another country, but a different planet. ... This programme was brash but fascinating. Health and safety and PR may be seen as modern evils, but looking at footage of the race’s winner spraying champagne just metres away from the charred corpses of his fans, you can see why they became necessary."

    2. Clay, Joe (2010-05-15). "Digital choices". The Times. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

      The review notes: "Deadliest Crash: The Le Mans 1955 Disaster BBC Four, 9pm At 6.26pm on June 11, 1955, on the home straight early in the Le Mans 24-Hour race, the future British World Champion Mike Hawthorn made a rash mistake that caused Pierre Levegh's Mercedes 300 SLR to career into the crowd, killing 83 people and injuring 120 more. It remains the worst disaster in motor racing history and this excellent film (above) uses original footage and stills, along with eyewitness accounts to examine the chain of events to try to discover exactly what happened."

    3. Wren, Wesley (2017-01-24). "'The Deadliest Crash' Dives Into The 1955 Le Mans Catastrophe". Autoweek. Archived from the original on 2024-06-05. Retrieved 2024-06-05.

      The review notes: "Originally aired in 2010, the documentary above dives into the background of the race with some spectators and participants, but spends it the second half talking about the accident in graphic detail. For motorsports fans who haven't already seen it, this hourlong documentary is a must-watch -- note that viewers might find some of the footage disturbing."

    4. The other sources found in Mushy Yank ( talk · contribs)'s excellent research including the extra coverage listed here.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Deadliest Crash: The Le Mans 1955 Disaster to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 11:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Tibet Airlines Flight 9833

Tibet Airlines Flight 9833 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable accident. No sustained continued coverage, no lasting effects have been demonstrated and no in-depth coverage generated from the accident. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 14:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Battle of Doljești and Orbic

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

I could not find any sources to prove that these events took place in the dates mentioned, which would fail WP:NEVENT. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Very Important Party

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli ( talk) 08:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Saturne Party

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli ( talk) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 New Jersey earthquake

AfDs for this article:
2024 New Jersey earthquake (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Now that the dust has settled down it is quite evident that no lasting coverage exists for this. Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS applies. Run of the mill earthquake that is unnotable, this wouldn't be an article if it occurred anywhere else in the world Traumnovelle ( talk) 21:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and New Jersey. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for same reasons I stated in the previous nomination. This was an exceedingly rare event and regardless if it doesn’t have lasting coverage shouldn’t mean it isn’t notable. Lots of things more important then the earthquake took over as the top news in the weeks after.-- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 00:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Rarity is not notability.
    >Lots of things more important then the earthquake took over as the top news in the weeks after
    Because the event was just news, nothing more. Notable events get reporting outside of just news.
    WP:NEVENT is the relevant notability guideline here which has not been met. Traumnovelle ( talk) 01:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Are we sure there is no lasting coverage? by the way, the continued aftershocks are relevant. 2600:4808:353:7B01:1785:F9F3:5DC9:D12E ( talk) 01:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Continued aftershocks are not relevant to lasting coverage of the earthquake, or else this would be the '2024 New Jersey earthquakes' Traumnovelle ( talk) 01:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Aftershocks were deemed relevant for the 2024 Noto earthquake and 2024 Hualien earthquake. Besides the first reference isn't even about an aftershock. -- 2600:4808:353:7B01:1785:F9F3:5DC9:D12E ( talk) 01:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Yes it is about repairing the damage, routine for the event.
    The two other articles have references which show lasting impact and coverage such as [1] and [2]
    Also you are comparing earthquakes more than a hundred times the power with over a thousand casualties each to one that had not a single casualty. Traumnovelle ( talk) 01:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Trout Slap The sources demonstrate global coverage in news and scientific publications. The previous AfD closed as Keep just weeks ago and nothing has changed. It's all relative. For example, at a whopping 1,803 feet (550 m), High Point (New Jersey) is an article for the tallest mountain in New Jersey, which would be a pimple in California, Colorado or Alaska. This was the strongest quake in the state in 240 years, and I'd be more than comfortable with the pace of four New Jersey earthquake articles every millennium, and the next one appearing somewhere in the 2260s. So the AfD rationalization is that it's already weeks past the earthquake and there isn't daily coverage so we need to delete the article? Time to whip out the trout and thrash it as needed. Alansohn ( talk) 03:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Terrible example, that mountain has a state park and ski park, both of which confer notability beyond simply being a mountain.
    Maybe I missed a link but I do not see any scientific publications in the reference list. WP:NEVENT is the relevant guideline.
    WP:EVENTCRIT, fails that.
    WP:LASTING, gives quite a clear example as to why this is not notable.
    WP:GEOSCOPE 'such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article'
    WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE apply here. Traumnovelle ( talk) 04:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    WP:GNG is satisfied based on the scope and breadth of reliable and verifiable sources about the earthquake. The earthquake itself occurred mere weeks ago and it is far, far too soon to be whining about WP:PERSISTENCE, which explicitly says "this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not". Come back in a few years and we can discuss as a community. Until then, move on. Alansohn ( talk) 05:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I disagree, if it is too soon to determine notability then it is too soon to have an article. GNG is also a presumption of notability and the relevant criteria for this article is NEVENT. Traumnovelle ( talk) 05:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for the same reason I said the last time this article was elected. This was a very rare event, both in magnitude and location. I've still seen talks about the earthquake to this day, and I feel like this was an important event and should have a page dedicated to it. OurAfternoonMalady ( talk) 11:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article is well sourced per WP:SIGCOV. It was in the news for weeks. It will likely be in annual retrospectives in December. It is still being studied academically, and is exactly the type that will be in popular culture for years. Bad nomination and arguments to delete worthy of a trout slap. Bearian ( talk) 14:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sentencing of Donald Trump in New York

Sentencing of Donald Trump in New York (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This poorly referenced substub should be redirected to the small but better referenced section at Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York#Sentencing. Right now, we don't know what this will be, so we are crystall-balling stuff. No prejudice to this being restored as an article when the section grows, but there is no need for this to remain as a stand-alone article in the current form. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I will consider either putting it in my draftspace for incubation/protection. Currently im choosing to keep it up.
If i do put it in my draftspace, I will readd it to the wiki in 1 or 2 weeks before that.
~ Snipertron12 :3 ~ [| User| Talk| Cont|] 12:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Snipertron12: you shouldn't unilaterally move an article while an AfD is open. And if you wait for the AfD to close, and it closes as delete, there won't be anything to draftify as deletion follows closure usually pretty promptly.
Also, your intention to publish this again 1-2 weeks before sentencing is not materially different to where we are now, in that it will still be about an uncertain future event. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 13:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete - there is no way of telling as of now if his sentencing will be independently notable from his prosecution & conviction, so it's best to leave it all in one article. estar8806 ( talk) ★ 13:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete - No reason for an article on a future event; the Prosecution article has a sentencing section. David notMD ( talk) 15:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete - An ongoing current event might or might not warrant an article in Wikipedia. But starting a new article for every development turns Wikipedia into a forum for news bulletins, which it is not. Uporządnicki ( talk) 16:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete- per nom 2601:441:8284:1CC0:2CC7:8112:D93C:9FB3 ( talk) 21:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete - per nom. Everything in this article is covered and better sourced in the main article, so this is just a dupe. ruth Bader yinzburg ( talk) ★
Delete. There is no reason to split this from the main article at this point in time. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 15:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete It's WP:CONTENTFORK at this point. Prosecution, conviction and sentencing can all be covered in one place. Keivan.f Talk 17:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

XIX International Chopin Piano Competition

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a thing there's absolutely nothing of any significance to say yet. This is still about a year and a half away, so we obviously don't know who the prize winners or even the competitors are -- literally the only thing we can say about it at this point is basic competiton rules sourced to the competition's own self-published website about itself, which is not a notability-building source.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation next year if and when there's actually reliably sourceable stuff to say about it, but we don't already need a boilerplate placeholder article to exist now. Bearcat ( talk) 15:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: I have now added numerous sources and expanded the article. The competition will begin on 23 April 2025, which is less than a year. The Chopin Competition is the most important musical event in Poland and one of the most significant events in classical music. Creating an article at this point, also considering that the rules have changed considerably for this edition, which is surely of interest to the reader, seems to be justified. As more verified information becomes available closer to the event date, the article can be further expanded. I believe having a well-sourced preliminary article now is preferable to waiting until the last minute. intforce ( talk) 20:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The time for an article about an event is not "a year out", it's "when there's substantive things to say about it beyond just 'this is a thing that will happen'". Bearcat ( talk) 20:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Meh. This is crystallbalish but useful, and there are already some sources about the upcoming program. Yes, technically we might be justfied with dratifying this for a while, but seriously, this is make-work that is pointless. We know this event will be notable. Why waste time moving it out from mainspace and back?
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 Mannheim stabbing

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Nothing to indicate that this will generate significant lasting coverage. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC) TheLongTone ( talk) 14:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Germany. Skynxnex ( talk) 14:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Keep
    1. The event has a lot of news coverage
    2. There is a clear perpetrator who was caught on camera
    3. There are multiple victims
    4. The police have released a report on the incident in its immediate aftermath Salfanto ( talk) 15:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
You do know that this is only the first day of the event right? Salfanto ( talk) 15:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
That is all the more reason why we should not have an article on it. Traumnovelle ( talk) 21:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The attack has received widespread global attention and clear impact on the highest political levels in Germany for a politically motivated attack on notable Islam-critic Michael Stürzenberger. Clear indications that this will have significant lasting impact/coverage. See also Stabbing of Salman Rushdie and 2024 Wakeley church stabbing (bishop Mari Emmanuel) for similar recent attacks. Thismess ( talk) 16:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Widespread coverage. Obvious keep. Thriley ( talk) 17:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This nominator have a history of deletion nomination which fail to pass, its obvious that this guy have no idea about the deletion criteria Afif Brika1 ( talk) 18:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Why are you attacking the editor and not the nomination itself? I looked through his past nominations and they were all fine and consensus agreed with him/is agreeing with him. His AfD stats show 75%+ which is a fine number for AfD.
    As to the article itself, even though it may achieve notability in the future it has yet to. WP:TOOSOON applies here and we should not be creating these articles the minute these events occur. Thus I support the nomination in Delete (Or turning into a draft) until it is actually possible for notability to be ascertained. Traumnovelle ( talk) 21:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Not only agreeing with the editor above, but considering the past week of news regarding the surge of right-wing nationalism in Germany, this attack will surely stir something in the coming days/weeks.
Volkish Kurden ( talk) 19:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep as a clear case of WP:RAPID. Not even a day has passed since the event. The initial news coverage has not passed yet, and we're talking about lasting notability that can't really be proven until at least a few weeks later. The attack also involves notable activist and critic of Islam Michael Stürzenberger. Also considering the recent stabbing attacks in Australia ( 2024 Wakeley church stabbing and Bondi Junction stabbings) still in the news cycle and the current surge of right-wing nationalism in Germany, I think there will be signifiant news coverage in the next few days. 106.71.58.30 ( talk) 04:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notable people involved and the whole event was recorded which will of course circulate the internet for years to come, and therefore I think deserves a stand-alone article. Kiwiz1338 ( talk) 05:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep Clearly notable violent event with a famous person involved, multiple injuries and one fatality. Killuminator ( talk) 18:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep this article as it is a major event with where a known figure was attacked and one person was killed in the result of the attack. In my opinion this event is worth of having it's own wikipedia article Szymonexis ( talk) 12:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment:
  1. when a politician is attacked, it is notable and important for history/archive/future reference. Compare with shooting of Slovak prime minister.
  2. it already has very significant coverage not only in Germany but internationally - every major newspaper in Sweden ran a story.
  3. this will become a major thing in right-wing circles as well as anti-immigration circles. That makes a Wikipedia-article and factual foundation even more important.

83.185.46.97 ( talk) 07:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Plenty of national and international coverage, high-profile and public incident, multiple victims, etc. Johndavies837 ( talk) 12:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep no doubt in that in my opinion Braganza ( talk) 12:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Have any of the keep votes read WP:NOTNEWS. Altho having read that the first victim is notable I'd amend my opinion to a merge to this unpleasant individual's article. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment
  1. I know nothing about the person in question, but noted that you seem to hold unfavorable views of him. Quote: "merge to this unpleasant individual's article".
  2. is it possible that your negative views of the person affect your judgement?
  3. you are very alone in thinking that this shouldn't be a standalone article.
83.185.46.97 ( talk) 13:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
My opinion of the victim is neither here nor there. It does not affect my opinion that this is an event that will generate no lasting coverage. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • DeleteMerge to Michael Stürzenberger: This is a BLP violation. Low profile individuals have been named in this article as having committed crimes without any conviction being obtained. Per WP:BLPCRIME this shouldn't be happening. This needs to be sent to draft at the very least. However it would be better to merge any useful material to the Michael Stürzenberger article as they seem to be the only notable person in this incident. TarnishedPath talk 15:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • This event has caused a widespread media-echo, at least in the German-speaking countries. There's also an outrage, how this could happen. Yes, we are looking at a party/movement that is Islam-critical to Anti-Islamic, and attacker who seems to be from Afghanistan (so likely a Muslim), but who has lived in Germany for some time and is married to a German woman. It is likely that this event will stay in the heads of the people, and not be linked to one of the proponents of the party who organized the event where it happened. In that context, the focus should be to keep this article, and to amend what is missing from the German-language version, rather than deleting it.-- Eptalon ( talk) 22:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep. A multiple casualty incident by European norms which occurred amid heated sociocultural discussions in Germany and the continent, further exacerbated by the EP election. Borgenland ( talk) Borgenland ( talk) 16:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Update: 1 person is dead. Borgenland ( talk) 06:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a repository of news stories. Any !vote suggesting that it's notable based solely on news coverage should be discarded. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 17:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    As per WP:N(E), widespread coverage for an extended duration of time comprises notability. Newgrass 82 ( talk) 00:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Several people were stabbed and it resulted in the death of a police officer, furthermore the event recieved world wide news coverage. Durraz0 ( talk) 18:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Still meets WP:COVERAGE and has global coverage; meets WP:NEWSEVENT. -- WikiLinuz ( talk) 20:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • keep notorious victim, numerous sources, high level political reactions, possible influence on incoming elections. Diderot1 ( talk) 20:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It's an assassination attempt against a notable German Islam-critic, the attack caused many casualties, and the attack has been commented on by dozens of politicians and received widespread (and also international) coverage. This is clearly a significant event and not just a normal news story. Sarrotrkux ( talk) 21:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Yes, I have read WP:NOTNEWS. Going to WP:N(E) from there, my judgement is that this event is definitely significant and interesting enough to keep. Newgrass 82 ( talk) 22:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have read WP:NOTNEWS, too, and I think that this article is not an original reporting (it is quite well referenced), it is not a WP:ROUTINE event (the mass stabbing happened during a political rally coming just one week before hotly-contested European elections, in which immigration is an hot topic), for sure it is WP:NOTGOSSIP. P1221 ( talk) 08:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This is an important event which has received lots of international coverage. Moondragon21 ( talk) 16:304, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep and close. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Abstain per most above; see WP:SNOWBALL and just get this over with.-- ~Sıgehelmus♗ (Tøk) 16:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep I don't fault the nominator, but this article has grown a lot in the last few days as the coverage continues to expand and in my opinion it clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. Inter&anthro ( talk) 20:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment There's been another stabbing in the very same city, a far right politician is the target again so I think we can put a fork in this discussion and possibly expand the scope of the article to include the new stabbing as well. Killuminator ( talk) 14:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Korean excrement balloon incident

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

I nominated for deletion; think the content of the article should be merged into Balloon propaganda campaigns in Korea. Reasoning: there's just not much else to say about this incident other than what's in the few news articles about it. It falls into the context of the balloon propaganda campaign, and doesn't have enough separate notability imo. 104.232.119.107 ( talk) 01:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge as despite coverage from major media companies, it's yet another example of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. Duke of New Gwynedd ( talk | contrib.) 18:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - while it is marginally notable, a merger back would allow for better context. Bearian ( talk) 15:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Canadian Swing Championships

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

The three non-primary sources in this article contain only trivial coverage. A WP:BEFORE search for the event name in English and French turned up nothing usable. (In terms of precedents, there are currently no other articles on individual swing dance events, and I would expect to see one on the more significant International Lindy Hop Championships before this.) Sdkb  talk 20:25, 28 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! 22:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Progress Chapter Two: The March Of Progress

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

No reason why this small show would be independently notable from the parent company. WP:BEFORE didn't show this event was particularly notable. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello, thank you for the sincere feedback. However, I believe that a proper categorization and documentation of Progress Wrestling's "Chapter" flagship events should exist. Now I understand that the early chapters might indeed be less notable than the more recent ones but I believe they should be part of the project which has to benefit from clear continuity. The presence of only some of the chapters on the mainspace would disrupt it as this continuity should be sanctioned as a book with pages. Let me know what you think. Regards! JeyReydar97 ( talk) 21:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
We don't have articles on subjects that aren't notable simply because later similar articles might be notable. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Almost all of these events are also featured on WWE Network's broadcast system as VOD shoes as Progress has held business relationships with WWE. They're pretty popular on that streaming service. JeyReydar97 ( talk) 22:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No coverage in RS, nothing found now. Was a decade ago, likely no further coverage. I don't see any sourcing we can use. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    It has video coverage on Progress' Youtube channel. I also found written coverages from two trustworthy sites. One of them is 411Mania. They should be more than enough as references. JeyReydar97 ( talk) 22:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  •  Comment: Perhaps @ JeyReydar97: could combine a couple of these early events into a larger article? Mixed martial arts does something similar for articles such as 2020 in Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki. JTtheOG ( talk) 03:15, 28 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! 20:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ HHH Pedrigree: Thank you; I wasn't sure wether they had done it for wrestling events too. JTtheOG ( talk) 17:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Siege of Barwara (1757)

Siege of Barwara (1757) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The whole article relies on WP:RAJ and out dated sources ( WP:AGE MATTERS) and there is no mention of “Siege of Barwara (1757)” in the sources. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 09:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

WP:RAJ is not a policy or guideline. It is an essay on the quality of sources on the Indian caste system and those written by Britons or Briton diplomats and administrators or under the guidance and review of Briton administrators like Lepel Griffin, Michael MacAuliffe, Sir John Withers McQueen. Indian historians like Sarkar's sources are used because historians today depend on their secondary work. Sarkar is an eminent historian and is perfectly reliable. Source still needs to be reviewed and verified. RangersRus ( talk) 15:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Even if WP:RAJ doesn't applies here it is still not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS and this is the only source used in the article thus it fails WP:GNG too. Mnbnjghiryurr ( talk) 04:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. RangersRus ( talk) 16:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
If old sources have become obsolete due to coverage in new sources then AGE matters and it does not apply here. Multiple sources are expected but there is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage. RangersRus ( talk) 11:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Just found it at RSN. Hope this helps to evaluate the reliability of Jadunath Sarkar. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 16:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply

*Delete, it clearly fails WP:GNG & there is only one sourced used in this article (Fall of the Mughal Empire by Jadunath Sarkar) which is not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS. Mnbnjghiryurr ( talk) 03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. RangersRus ( talk) 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I had to wait to be able to find the source on the page for verification. Source by Sarkar has enough coverage from page 191 to 193 on the siege. The name of location is Barwada not Barwara (spelling error?). Page passes general notability guidelines. RangersRus ( talk) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as per Nom & it fails WP:GNG Chauthcollector ( talk) 12:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Mughal–Kashmir Wars

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

This article literally has no sources or content in it. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 05:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Rather than deleting the page, editors should work on it and improve it. It's an actual war provided with sufficient sources. Lightningblade23 ( talk) 10:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep The war is historically accurate. Citations and content can be added and the article can be improved but its deletion wouldn't be in good faith. EditorOnJob ( talk) 12:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete or Draftify. Poor, unreliable and unverifiable sources excluding two by Mohibbul Hasan and Majumdar. The complete page is from source by Mohibbul Hasan from page 183 to 186 that has a mention of two wars fought in 1527 won by Kashmir Sultanates and the other in 1528 won by Mughals. Majumdar source is used for mention of Khanua battle that has nothing to do with Mughal-Kashmir wars. None of the other sources have any ascription. The page numbers on source templates for Hasan are wrong. The creator of the page should hold back from primary sources like Chādūrah, Ḥaydar Malik who was an administrator and soldier under Mughal emperor in 17th century, Baharistan-i-shahi, a Persian manuscript written by an anonymous author, presumably in early 17th century, Tarikh-i Firishta written by Muhammad Qasim Ferishta presumably between 16th and 17th century and also Babur-nama. Page is also WP:SYNTH when you read a content written "The Mughals faced the Chaks at Naushahra and, despite early success, were defeated and forced to retreat back to India." No phases of wars are supported by reliable sources. Draftify vote is if the creator can bring on reliable sources to support many phases of wars to consider the page an actual full fledged Mughal-Kashmir Sultanate wars. RangersRus ( talk) 14:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Yet another WP:SYNTH like few other recently deleted pages revolving around the same subjects. Azuredivay ( talk) 15:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess recent contributions to the article since the deletion nomination says it has no sources and that is no longer true.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

1978 West Virginia judicial elections

1978 West Virginia judicial elections (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
1980 West Virginia judicial elections (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1982 West Virginia judicial elections (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The West Virginia judicial election articles for 1978, 1980, and 1982 all fail WP:NOTDB. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 05:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, as a malformed nomination. The justification given is an alias of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is fairly clear on what constitutes indiscriminate information, and none of the examples apply: a judicial election is not a "summary-only example of a creative work". It is not a "lyrics database". It is not an "excessive description of unexplained statistics". It is not "an exhaustive log of software updates". The third option mentions election statistics, but describes "unexplained" data taken out of context that might be too lengthy or confusing for readers: vote totals for each candidate are the opposite of that. WP:INDISCRIMINATE plainly does not apply to a straightforward description of an election. P Aculeius ( talk) 11:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    The spirit of NOTDB is that data should be presented with independent sourcing to explain its importance. These articles are purely election results. Maybe merging them into one article with a general description of WV judicial elections would meet NLIST, but as of now, I don't think that these meet notability guidelines and NOPAGE applies. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 17:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:ADHERENCE which says "the shortcut is not the policy". James500 ( talk) 15:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I've now explained a bit more above why I think it fails NOTDB; I agree that I should have provided more of an explanation in my initial rationale. It's also not clear to me what ADHERENCE is trying to get at. The implication of linking to the policy is that I'm incorporating it by reference. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 17:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I have struck my !vote in the absence of evidence of GNG. INDISCRIMINATE does not say anything about explaining importance. NOTSTATS says "statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing", which may be what the first sentence of INDISCRIMINATE is talking about. I don't think anyone could be confused by these election results. James500 ( talk) 19:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    The topic of West Virginia judicial elections satisfies GNG: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Only 1980 West Virginia judicial elections actually contains a single state supreme court election. James500 ( talk) 20:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    If that article is created, I would support a merge of the Supreme Court portion of the 1980 article to that page, and redirect the rest. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 20:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I do not know if I have time to create an article on West Virginia judicial elections during this AfD. In the absence of such an article, I think that at least some of the material on the state supreme court election in 1980 West Virginia judicial elections be merged to Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia#Elections. I am satisfied that the state supreme court elections satisfy LISTN. There is also coverage of Judge Thomas E McHugh in newspapers, and coverage elsewhere such as [11]. James500 ( talk) 17:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: An WP:ATD would be a redirect/merge to 1978 West Virginia elections, but that target does not currently exist. Curbon7 ( talk) 17:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all These are not notable elections - the West Virginia Circuit Courts are the lowest level of courts in the state, and we generally do not have articles for trial court elections in other states either. These barely receive even local attention, often unopposed as seen in several here. If the only source is the government's report of results, there is simply no basis for an article, as we are not a database of every minor election result. Supreme_Court_of_Appeals_of_West_Virginia#Elections could be expanded to have a subarticle for those statewide elections, but these fail WP:N. Reywas92 Talk 01:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all I do not think WP:NOTDB applies here - but I do not think they meet WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T· C 04:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Delete all: The elections in circuit court is rarely ever notable outside the county/circuit that the court is in. And sometimes not even that. West Virginia WXeditor ( talk) 23:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion due to the proposed Merge. But I can't close this as a Merge to a nonexistent article so there has to be some reassurance that said article will be created during this discussion or another Merge target article selected by consensus. Otherwise, this discussion will likely close as Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Miss Cosmo International 2024

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

Doesn't meet WP:EVENT Claggy ( talk) 22:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Claggy ( talk) 22:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Vietnam. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Page could be recreated once the event has been held, however. TH1980 ( talk) 00:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    It would be held. Just like in any other international pageant that is going to happen within the year, it's not too soon to create an article for this. Example of which is Miss Universe, which would be held in September/November (even if there's no clear date yet but there's an article for that. So, I'd disprove of that. I'd retain it.
    Suggestions would only include a few more citations and reliable references from the media/news. Take these into consideration before even deleting this. Thank you. Japemizen627 ( talk) 07:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

No please don't delete the page. The event will be held soon in October

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

85th Plenary Session of the Indian National Congress

85th Plenary Session of the Indian National Congress (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N, not a notable event. — Hemant Dabral ( 📞 • ✒) 17:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

* Delete: Based on my check, I searched for in-depth coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources to establish notability, but I couldn’t find any. The sources I found were just passing mentions and cannot meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 18:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC) * Delete. 3 sources on the page and none have significant coverage to warrant a full fledged page on the subject. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus ( talk) 14:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The article needs substantial cleanup but as the second-largest political party by membership in the democratic world a meeting like this is likely to be notable, in a similar sense to 2024 Democratic National Convention. We even have an article for the tiny 2024 Libertarian National Convention. The US Libertarian Party has less than 1 million members, the Indian National Congress has 95 million. I've conducted a few quick searches and located quite a bit of coverage from national newspapers in India such as this from The Hindu and this from the Times of India. Google News searches produce a lot of results, too. It appears the conference was quite significant for the party based on the coverage. AusLondonder ( talk) 16:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Comment: The Times of India can’t establish notability at all as per WP:TOI GrabUp - Talk 16:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, from a quick glance there is ample in-depth coverage in English media outlets. There is scope to expand the article, and outline the policy shifts that materialized in or through the event. It's worth noting that this is the national convention of a party that pulled 119 million votes in the last national election. -- Soman ( talk) 11:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - examples of in-depth coverage at India Today, NDTV, National Herald, The Wire, Business Standard, Business Standard, The Hindu, Hindustan Times. -- Soman ( talk) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Keep: Thanks for sharing these sources, Maybe my BEFORE was not great enought like you. I am convinced that the article meets WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 11:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
      I too changed vote but to Draftify as the page needs major work with all reliable sources given by Soman and AusLondonder. If we just vote for Keep, then no guarantee if anyone will improve the page. Creator of the page can take the feedback from here, improve the page and republish it. RangersRus ( talk) 19:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    National Herald is a Congress Party linked Newspaper. Does it qualify for a neutral, Independent reference source? — Hemant Dabral ( 📞 • ✒) 12:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify. After looking at search work by AusLondonder and Soman, page has potential to pass WP:GNG with some cleanup and expansion with reliable sources. Voting for page to Draftify for creator and other interested editors to improve the page and then submit for review to be published. RangersRus ( talk) 19:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Draftify is not intended as incubation for expansions. This article is a mini-stub, but a perfectly legitimate stub. There is no material in the current version of the article that warrants it to be draftified. See Wikipedia:Drafts#Moving_articles_to_draftspace. -- Soman ( talk) 11:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or draftify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 Pune car crash

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

WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOTNEWS, no significant coverage outside India and trivial commentary by a few politicians, possibly because it happened during the 2024 Indian general election. Borgenland ( talk) 07:50, 24 May 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 May 23. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 07:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As stated in WP:N(E), "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) [...] are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." There's nothing about this event that indicates it has (or will have) enduring significance. Ethmostigmus ( talk | contribs) 11:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    It will have enduring significance, we are seeing members of the current ruling party lauchpadding this case for the movement of judicial reform. 27.63.231.66 ( talk) 18:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Which coinciding with the general election, may as well be an electoral stunt that everyone will forget. Borgenland ( talk) 18:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    A significance in this case my friend is the fact of how it exposes the 2 different India. The minor in the case was let off in less than a day with nothing more than a month of social service and a puny essay to write on road accident on the account he is not an adult. The minor had been allowed inside 2 pubs and allowed to drive a porsche whichunder indian law can only be done once you are above 18. This makes this case have lasting value to the legal system. This is different from most crimes, accidents and is very notable due to the social media traction it gained. The only political or criminal connection comes as an MLA that is a member of indian parliament's son was in the car at the time and beat up by people at the venue of accident and the judicial system was exposed for its flaw in giving juvenile justice and the police did a bad job on this case. Killing of 2 IT proffesionals cannot be termed as a electoral stunt. PublicHelper1101 ( talk) 17:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Very much a routine automobile accident, you could replace "Pune" with almost any city around the globe and the story would be the same. NOTNEWS Oaktree b ( talk) 15:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I would not say so my dear friend for this accident has waters much deeper than most cases, it involves an MLA, a renowned builder and incompetency of a bribed police and hospital staff. The mom of the minor was reported to have swapped her blood making this veryyy different from an average automobile accident in las vegas etc. PublicHelper1101 ( talk) 17:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    The accident isn't notable, the investigation and allegations around it could be notable; that would be a different article. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Your comment makes no sense yet let me explain, This accident involves a builder's son crashing into 2 IT proffesionals at 3:30 AM at a speed of 200 km/h. Accused was handed to police and was giiven bail in less than a day without any notable punishment making this a notable accident. This article should not be deleted. Publichelper1011 ( talk) 05:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Automobile accidents are very common, run of the mill incidents, sure, this incident may have gotten a tad bit more attention from politicians and the news, but at the end of the day, its frankly not really news. - Samoht27 ( talk) 16:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    This incident is different from your run of the mill accidents. This time it involves rich parents saving a brat from rightful justice as he was released in less than a day and was given a punishment of writing a "run of the mill" essay and was entitled to a few days of community service. An average murderer is remanded to 2 years of juvenile custody I must add dear dellow samoht. PublicHelper1101 ( talk) 17:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It has got significant coverage for now. It will take sometime to see if it meets WP:LASTING. Ratnahastin ( talk) 17:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Delete: And until then, relevant policies stipulate that the incident is not notable, and an article on it therefore cannot be sustained. If this is still in the news two years from now, I expect anyone still interested can recreate it at that time. Ravenswing 15:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:RAPID. Not the right time to decide notability of the subject that has already got enough coverage. Srijanx22 ( talk) 19:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is incredibly MILL and probably didn't need the usual pointlessly rageful Republic/NDTV overcoverage which seems to be openly turning a simple vehicular death incident into exactly what they want. There won't be lasting coverage and it will likely end with private settlements and other justice currently happening now. Nate • ( chatter) 22:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Its may 30 today 1 week after the incident and News show that minor was released in 17 hours, Hospital staff was bribed of 3 lakhs, the minor's father and grandfather in police custody. thier uncle has ragebaited the public, minors mom has faked blood reports by swapping her own blood for her childs reminding us of drishyam 2 and its amazing climax. PublicHelper1101 ( talk) 17:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Still getting coverage. [12] ArvindPalaskar ( talk) 05:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete reiterate a minimal casualty toll, non-notable victims (that the suspect was driving a Porsche is mere WP:TRIVIA) and no significant coverage outside India. Borgenland ( talk) 06:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
This above comment is posted by the same editor who also nominated this article for deletion. [13] Ratnahastin ( talk) 06:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Stricken for emphasis. That's right. You need to sign + timestamp all nominations, Borgenland, which already count as your preference to delete (!vote). El_C 07:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Didn’t notice that in the starter. Thanks! Borgenland ( talk) 07:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
No worries, all good. El_C 07:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per NOTNEWS and above in general. The Kip ( contribs) 08:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for the reasons others have mentioned, if this is something that will become notable then it's WP:TOOSOON. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 10:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep To say that an article should be deleted only because it concerns a recent incident is not sensible. Should wait for some weeks before doing AfD in these cases. Shankargb ( talk) 15:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    It's not that it's recent so much as it's a completely run of the mill drunk driving crash that killed two people. It quite literally is not notable. The Kip ( contribs) 17:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    ... which was stated in the OP. What isn't sensible is to base an opinion at AfD based on cherrypicking only one element of the nomination. Ravenswing 17:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Run-of-the-mill car crash of which hundreds of the same scale occur every day. Just because something receives a small burst of news coverage does not mean it is notable. Curbon7 ( talk) 17:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    1 week after the incident, multiple arrest have been done in the case. The investigation for the mother is on way, bribe of 3 lakhs has been noted, police have said this is not an everyday car crash. PublicHelper1101 ( talk) 17:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    • My comment no longer applies as the crash, while still fairly run-of-the-mill, has clearly has had some sort of broader impact. Curbon7 ( talk) 21:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:SUSTAINED etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete run of the mill accident without the depth or extent of media coverage, such that it is not notable. The only thing setting it apart is the odd bail conditions, but that is insufficient to give it notability. Local Variable ( talk) 10:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    local variabled is unable to see the news i assume PublicHelper1101 ( talk) 17:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete doesn't seem notable to me at all. These types of crashes occur every day. Sadustu Tau ( talk) 10:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    sadustu tau must catch up to recent news. PublicHelper1101 ( talk) 17:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Being vague about this is not going to change my argument. Sadustu Tau ( talk) 20:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Also my comment was made before more recent developments, which do seem to make it more notable than usual, however. Sadustu Tau ( talk) 20:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep While vehicle accidents are not automatically notable, this one is a different case. 2024 elections are not really relevant for this incident. This car crash has gained significant worldwide coverage, [14] contrary to this AfD nomination. Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 16:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Doubtful over its sustainable coverage though. At this rate it is a mere eccentric news from abroad. Borgenland ( talk) 16:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete as it's basically a car crash, which will not generate sustained coverage. If it does indeed generate long-term coverage, it can be recreated. OhHaiMark ( talk) 16:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The case is in no way trivial. Each day has only got the case more coverage in national media. The involvement of politicians in the case has nothing to do with the General election. The Porsche case is a national phenomenon in its own right. In addition, the case continues to cause arrests and interrogation of multiple individuals involved presently.
Appu ( talk) 13:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep While Such accidents are prevalent worldwide. However, this news has got India-wide coverage and is still getting coverage.
~~TNS~~ ( talk) 17:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep (1)The case has garnered significant media coverage with each & every update of the case being telecasted and covered across the board. Multiple national politicians have already made comments on it during the ongoing 2024 Indian General Elections. Therefore the subject is already notable enough for an independent page. The incident is of national coverage and has already brought the discussion on the Judiciary and Police executives to the forefront. (2) Being a recent news, as per WP:RAPID it is better to keep the page for now since there is no deadline to delete the page. Moreover, if its not WP:SUSTAINED in future, it can always be deleted. (3) For WP:TOOSOON multiple developments have already taken place in the investigation with reactions from many notable people. Therefore it is not too soon and sufficient time has already passed. EditorOnJob ( talk) 13:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • keep the incident is clearly notable, and it passes Wikipedia:Notability (events). The incident is being covered all over India in reliable sources. Nominator's rationale "no significant coverage outside India is also inappropriate. Most of the murders, and missing persons cases (from all over the world) do not get international coverage, very few do. When the car crash took place, I thought the coverage was sensationalism, but later the decisions were cancelled, and now three generations are in custody source. The resulting coverage is now not sensationalism. According to this, (posted on 23, crash was on 19) it has grabbed national attention. The car crash has also reopened the investigation of a hit placed by Surndra Agarwal on a corporator through mafia/underworld don [15] Two doctors of state-run hospital were arrested source. These things do not happen with run of the mill car crashes. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SUSTAINED. If there are significant changes in popular media, legislation etc. because of this event over the next few years then we can recreate the article. Also to the nom, that "no significant coverage outside India" is definitely uncalled for. -- Lenticel ( talk) 01:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    This comment calls for deleting every case even those of deaths of head of state if they had no change to popular media, please use common sense brother lentical. PublicHelper1101 ( talk) 17:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    What a poor choice of analogy comparing a dead world leader with a local councilman bhai. You do need to make your arguments have more sense. Borgenland ( talk) 18:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a multinational news story. It is not about a car crash, but instead about social issues such as wealth avoiding legal consequences, bribery, rich young people using alcohol, the rights of common people versus rich, and others. This is not a routine report of an automobile collision, nor is it local, and the story is very likely to have ongoing updates because of further developments including the bribery accusations and accusations of corruption of doctors, police, and the courts. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not least because of the enormous BLP violations contained within, including claims of criminality and intent that have not been fully adjudicated and the publication of minors' and non-notable victims' names. If the topic eventually does receive sustained attention, it can easily be refunded, but right now it is doing far more harm to victims' families in addition to contributing to sensationalist non-NPOV political reporting. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    The topic is still viral on social media and spokesperson of multiple politcal parties, and news channel still report the incident and cover it about 10 days after the reported rage break in social media. PublicHelper1101 ( talk) 17:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep: This incident rather exposed a number of doctors and other people involved due to the public pressure which isn't a normal occurrence if it hadn't been public pressure the incident would have been like any normal accident out there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.89.170 ( talk) 16:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. The incident has recieved notable media coverage along with multiple independent sources covering the topic over a prolonged period. The Indian General elections have ended, the media coverage should be observed over the next few days in order to access whether it was a politcally motivated topic or a notable topic of interest. Keep it for the time being and continue the discussion for the a few more days. Xoocit ( talk) 23:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is still an active discussion ongoing here. I tagged the article as lacking NPOV but I'm also baffled by editors claiming this article is about " a routine automobile accident" as this article has been greatly expanded since its nomination. What matters is not whether or not editors believe a car crash is just news but whether reliable source establish this subject's notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per WP:RAPID It has got significant coverage till date. The question whether it is WP:LASTING will be only known in due course. The trial has to take place .Hence for now it is keep. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 09:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep This is not a random car crash but a unique one. It is still getting enough coverage and this coverage is going to happen for a longer period of time. Georgethedragonslayer ( talk) 15:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This incident has caused a stir in India like no other car crash has. Deeper themes of the exploitation of the poor by the rich with money (rich kid killed the poor, but almost got away with it by bribing with money) exist, and it also highlights the injustices that India’s current legal/police system allows. Coverage by many major Indian news providers still continues, alongside social media discussions by citizens. JayTea2910 ( talk) 15:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and news coverage alone does not demonstrate notability. Come back after the news coverage ends and there are articles explaining how significant the fallout was. Creating articles for events before that happens is irresponsible. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 17:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Appallingly written, but clearly extremely notable and will continue to be extremely notable in highlighting preferential treatment of the rich in India's justice system. So yes, contrary to claims above it's already very clear that this will have enduring significance. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify. WP:BLPCRIME advises that editors should seriously consider not creating articles about living people accused of a crime, before they have been convicted, as they are presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law. It is too soon to have this article. Allow the judicial process to play out first. - Cameron Dewe ( talk) 12:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Cameron Dewe: Hi. this article isn't a BLP, it is about a car crash and aftermath. The article doesn't even name the accused perp. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Usernamekiran: True, the article is not a BLP but WP:BLPCRIME applies to all articles. The same consideration is set out at WP:PERPETRATOR, too. The article is about a fatal vehicle collision in which two motorcyclist have died. In most countries that makes it a double homicide, which is a crime, not just a "car" crash. Several other people who assisted the perpetrator are named in the article and they are also accused of committing crimes. WP:BLPCRIME applies to them too. - Cameron Dewe ( talk) 00:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The article is obviously biased but the incident has pretty wide coverage across India, and there appears to have been ramifications for social discourse in India about corruption, rule of law and wealth inequality stemming directly from this incident. Cyali ( talk) 02:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I'm all for shaming the rich and powerfully connected, but I'm not sure that has been the consensus since at least 2007. Argue amongst yourselves, but please ping me if there has been a new precedent created by keeping this article. Bearian ( talk) 15:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep per comments above. Notable and unique event, with masive media coverage. Also create a couple of redirects to the page for wider accessibility. Pharaoh496 ( talk) 08:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • this is an update, and significant coverage in reliable source on the next day of general elections. Signifying that previous coverage was not sensationalism. It has retained sustained coverage. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 Austrian Open

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

$5000 tournament at bwf international level which doesn't meet the notability criteria WP:GNG, WP:NSPORTS and WP:NBAD. The only notable ones which get enough coverage in notable websites are World Tour tournaments.

Moreover the tournament winners are already mentioned here in Austrian International page as each of those editions can't be created on their own due to notability issue. zoglophie •talk• 08:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete, was unable to find non-primary sources. ✶Qux yz ✶ 16:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify – As WP:ATD. The event is ongoing and the article was recently created, if there are more sources they can be added accordingly. Svartner ( talk) 22:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 12:50, 30 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 merge‎ to Emmanuel Mwambulukutu. in case there is information in this article that is not in the target article. Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2007 attack on Emmanuel Mwambulukutu

2007 attack on Emmanuel Mwambulukutu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of WP:LASTING - unfortunately a lot of violent crime happens in South Africa, not every attack is noteworthy. BrigadierG ( talk) 23:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment an attack on an ambassador is more notable than a random attack, but unless there was some lasting impact, I'd probably agree with Nom. 08:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete the diplomat may well be notable to have his own article, but not this event in particular I would say. Uhooep ( talk) 14:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Emmanuel Mwambulukutu used to be an article on the diplomat before it was redirected to this newly-created page on the 2007 attack. It wasn't in great shape, but with most of the sources dead, I can't say much definitively on his personal notability other than it's probably borderline. The attack probably isn't notable enough on its own, but I didn't do any real research into it, so I'm not placing an actual !vote. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment if Mwambulukutu was a Member of Parliament from 1985-2000 then why was the article binned in the first place. That would make him notable. Even if the article was a mess it could still be improved. Uhooep ( talk) 06:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment I have restored his bio. He is clearly a notable politician having been an MP in the Tanzanian Parliament. Perhaps any non-duplicated prose from this afd can be transcribed there where appropriate. Uhooep ( talk) 14:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Emmanuel Mwambulukutu, not enough content to stand on its own. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Emmanuel Mwambulukutu. This is something that happened in his life and should be part of his biography. We don't split random events in someone's biography off to their own articles unless there's so much to write about that it's impractical to keep it in the bio. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 17:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There is no point in merging. All the content is present in the main article. XabqEfdg ( talk) 00:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Doesn't need a separate article and all info is already in the Emmanuel Mwambulukutu article. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:29, 3 June 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.

Bermuda Smash Invitational

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

Non-notable cricket tournament which fails WP:GNG, WP:NCRIC, and WP:EVENT. AA ( talk) 13:32, 22 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! 20:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2005 Kavatshi Airlines Antonov An-26B crash

2005 Kavatshi Airlines Antonov An-26B crash (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Accident doesn't demonstrate needed notability for an article. Fails the general notability guideline, the event criteria, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and doesn't demonstrate any lasting effects. Whilst the event does have coverage (minimal), the majority of them are in french with all of them being short stories. I haven't been able to find any coverage post-2005 involving this accident. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 12:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

•Keep Yet again another Antonov accident that doesnt fail WP:NOTNEWS, an accident with 11 fatalities is not an everyday occurance. Lolzer3000 ( talk) 14:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Just because an event doesn't fail WP:NOTNEWS doesn't mean it automatically gets a keep. No lasting effects were demonstrated from the accident. It has been 18 years since the accident and the accident has not demonstrated any (long-term) impacts. The event does not have significant nor reliable coverage.
Per WP:EVENTCRIT:
  1. Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. Event does not fulfill this criteria.
  2. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below). No widespread impact or coverage in diverse sources with no analysis of the accident.
  3. Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event. Event has limited coverage.
  4. Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Nothing inherently notable about this accident even if tragic.
Post-2005, I haven't been able to find any coverage regarding this accident thus failing WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 15:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
an accident like this is indefinetly going to fail the 10-year test that many deletion authors go by, no accident has continued coverage over 19 years. Lolzer3000 ( talk) 21:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
For sure no accident will have continued coverage for over 19 years but an accident should at least be mentioned/ talked about for at least a year especially for an accident with that many fatalities. All news sources are primary sources which means it is impossible to source reliable secondary sources. All news sources only state the circumstances of the accident without any analysis of the accident failing WP:INDEPTH.
The event fails the general notability guidelines as it has no significant coverage and no reliable secondary sources. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 12:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Agreeable here, i can only find a singular source covering it 6 days later, linked below, there is an in depth summary in 2005 in aviation so the general deletion of the article itself wouldnt be a problem because the information is still pertained in the summary.
[16] (the mentioned link) Lolzer3000 ( talk) 16:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notability issue needs more attention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 05:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete No evidence of continued or widespread coverage that would assist in meeting EVENTCRIT. No evidence of meeting GNG. Triptothecottage ( talk) 09:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Mention it in a list of aircraft crashes instead. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 17:21, 2 June 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. There's no support here for draftification. But if you make a request at WP:REFUND they might be willing to restore this article to Draft space. Know that it would need to meet approval by an AFC reviewer, if put directly in main space, it would be subject to CSD G4 speedy deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet

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

Poor attempt of the author to keep Pala Tibetan War from AFD. Same content with different title. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War. Imperial [AFCND] 14:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Devapāla came into conflict with Tibet, there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Raja Dharma- pala to submit. Devapāla also may have come to clash with them and defeated them. [1]
  • Devapāla might have come into conflict with Tibet; there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-Srong-Ida-Btsan and his son Mu-teg-Btsan-po subdued India and forced Dharma- pāla to submit. Devapāla also may have clashed with them and defeated them [2]
Based Kashmiri ( talk) 15:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Please stop listing down this big {{tq}} here. It was already a mess at the earlier discussion. Comment down if you've any possible arguments that could potentially save the article. I am pretty sure you haven't read what WP: NOTABILITY, and this reflects everywhere in the AFD. Long paragraphs are not the factor that determines whether it passes GNG or not. And I can see you've duplicated the text twice here. Imperial [AFCND] 19:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC) reply
This event is notable and has received significant coverage in Reliable Sources ( WP:RS) and it passes WP:GNG & WP:SIGCOV and this isn't WP:OR since reliable sources mention the event as Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet.
Also what do you mean by "And I can see you've duplicated the text twice here."?? I gave you two reliable sources which mentions the event in a similar way. Based Kashmiri ( talk) 04:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Based Kashmiri, what you've done is exposed plagiarism. They mention the event in a similar way because one source plagiarized the other, not because this is a conventional way to write about this. -- asilvering ( talk) 19:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC) reply
As per the WP:DEL-REASON guideline, there is no reason to delete this article and I have provided multiple reliable sources about this event here in the replies below. Based Kashmiri ( talk) 11:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Do we have evidence that one of these sources plagiarised the other? Cortador ( talk) 06:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Sinha, Bindeshwari Prasad (1974). Comprehensive History Of Bihar Vol.1; Pt.2.
  2. ^ Diwakar, R. R. (1958). Bihar through the ages.
  • Delete. This is obviously a recreation of the previously deleted article. It does have a better title, in that it is no longer claiming there was a "Pala Tibetan War", but this is the same issue. We can write about this hypothetical conflict (one of the sources you list above even says "might have"!) on Devapala (Pala dynasty). If eventually we find sources to justify a separate article, we can spin out out from Devapala (Pala dynasty). But we did not find those sources in the last AfD, so I doubt we will find them here either. While I'm looking at that article, I note that we also have the sentences There is nothing impossible as the Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Dharmapāla to submit. Therefore, Devapāla must have also clashed with and defeated the Tibetan kings. Not only does this not follow the sources (our article says "must have", while neither source says so), it is obviously plagiarism. -- asilvering ( talk) 19:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    This is not a recreation of the previously deleted article, also this article doesn't have any issues like that article, if you think there is any issue in this article then list them down.
    The previous article had issues with the "Dharmapāla's Conflict with Tibetans" section and the "Conflict with Nepal" section, which is excluded from this article. This article focuses on the conflict between Devapala and Tibet, with reliable sources mentioning the event as "Devapala's Conflict with Tibet." The main problem with the previous article was the uncited title, but this article provides reliable sources to support its claim. Based Kashmiri ( talk) 15:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I don't mean "it literally contains the exact same words as the previous article". If that were the case, it could just be nominated for speedy deletion. I mean "it is in effect the same article with the same problems", which is true. At least one of the two reliable sources you brought up above appears to be plagiarized, so not only is this not two separate sources with in-depth coverage, it's only one source with very brief coverage. This can easily be written about on Devapala (Pala dynasty) if necessary. (But I'd advise against plagiarising a plagiarised source to do so.) -- asilvering ( talk) 19:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    This article cannot be deleted for the reasons you've provided, as per the Wikipedia deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON.
    Additionally, here are some additional reliable sources about this event:
    Based Kashmiri ( talk) 11:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    These sources do not support your case. -- asilvering ( talk) 17:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Then explain how? Also you still haven't given any reasons to delete this article from as per the Wikipedia's deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON. Based Kashmiri ( talk) 04:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    The reason for deletion is simple, and it is the most common deletion reason that exists: this does not pass WP:GNG. We need multiple reliable, secondary sources that discuss the topic in depth. -- asilvering ( talk) 10:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply

:Delete per asilvering and Imperial Okmrman ( talk) 04:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. Owen× ☎ 05:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

They do not have any valid reason to delete the article, Please provide a valid reason from WP:DEL-REASON. Based Kashmiri ( talk) 08:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Okmrman And I just checked your User contributions and noticed you have voted for deletion for every single AFD you had discovered EVERY MINUTE, without even reading anything. Based Kashmiri ( talk) 08:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Both @ Asilvering and @ ImperialAficionado haven't provided any valid reason to delete this article from WP:DEL-REASON, how can you agree with them? Based Kashmiri ( talk) 08:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:14, 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, Owen× ☎ 05:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete , this is simply not notable and has wrongly been re-created as an article with a different name. If this goes on a topic ban would be in order for the editor. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note to closer: I think I can improve this article based on the concern raised in this discussion, let me work on this article further. I'd request the closer to please draftify it so I can improve this article. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 04:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I don't see enough evidence that this needs a standalone article. Even if it does when all history is put together, it's clear the author does not yet have the requisite experience to write that article. It would have to be started from scratch and by a more experienced editor, which can be them in the future, but I think deleting is best for now to put an end to the disruption. Usedtobecool  ☎️ 03:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: There's so much WP:Synthesis present in these creations. IMHO the new creation seems to dovetail somewhat with the old page's sources, events, and personalities. But so far, there's a general consensus among other content-area editors this material has no place in pagespace (yet, if at all). The page creator's "gaming" behavior in recreating the same basic pagespace without violating specific prohibitions, seems by itself a behavioral issue, and several times repeated. BusterD ( talk) 16:50, 4 June 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

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Events&oldid=1227442597"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Events|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Events.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Events

Pilgrimage (demoparty)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The only thing I found was this webpage (not article) on The Salt Lake Tribune's website. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli ( talk) 15:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Western Canada Youth Parliament

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

Fails GNG. Nothing in Google news or books. Nothing when searching in cbc.ca. Only primary sources in plain Google search. LibStar ( talk) 04:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

FIM Women's Motorcycling World Championship

FIM Women's Motorcycling World Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe this meets WP:GNG. Little significant coverage in independent sources. T v x1 22:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • The first season of this newly established World Championship is due to begin in just under two weeks. Coverage has been limited to motorsports-focused outlets such as Speedweek ( example here), Eurosport ( example here), and others ( Road Racing World, Paddock-GP.com). Deletion is entirely unwarranted, given that this is a World Championship sanctioned by the same governing body that oversees events such as MotoGP, WorldSBK, and others. Mathias327 ( talk) 07:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Well, to be clear, notability isn't inherited from parent topics ( WP:NOTINHERITED) nor is it conferred by equivalent topics ( WP:OTHERSTUFF). There does seem to be some coverage at the moment, maybe not enough for an article, but there will almost certainly be enough coverage in two weeks' time. Is it worth it to delete or draftify this article and then recreate it in, say, a month? I don't think so. Arguably it doesn't pass notability standards right now, but we ought to be pragmatic here. 5225C ( talk •  contributions) 09:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Interesting nomination. But disappointing, per 5225C and Mathias327. This is what happens when inexperienced, over-zealous editors 'pirate' what others have written; sometimes it's almost like a competition - who can get it on to WP first. I often see this with racing deaths, contrary to wp notmemorial, when there is nothing/insufficient previously written about the racer, being an also-ran. See Paul Dobbs, Victor Steeman, Billy Redmayne, Dean Berta Viñales.
I'm sure you're all aware that I wrote it, purposely as a section ( in February 2024) as nothing had then (yet) happened. I'm equally sure you've read what I wrote here, being toosoon, permastub, crystal - "There is simply no need for a separate article at this premature stage".
Having established that, I disagree that it should be draftified; such action, whilst admitting that some coverage may be available soon, could be regarded as pointy. However the mechanism, it's there, so yes, pragmatism in that redirect (back to) section may be just a retrograde/administrative move (I am an inclusionist).
Keep. Considering what's happening with women's participation in certain sports, and the positive discrimination to enable them, then I think the article is a 'net-positive' to the project, although, considering the nationalities of the participants, will likely be of more-interest to European, non-English first speakers. Considering positive discrimination, I can cite WIR (with which I disagree, being a determined effort to skew the natural balance).-- 82.13.47.210 ( talk) 23:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Conquest of Mandaran

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG as there are no reliable sources which provide significant coverage of this event or mentions the event as Conquest of Mandaran. it relies heavily on Non- WP:RS sources. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 09:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military and India.
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Reviewed all the sources before they were removed and all are poor and fail WP:HISTRS like a source where N.K. Sahu is an editor of a book that was contributed by William Wilson Hunter, WP:RAJ and sources by Nitish K. Sengupta who was an IAS officer in 1957 and served as the Revenue Secretary of the Government of India. No source has a paragraph enough to give depth on the Conquest of Mandaran Page fails WP:GNG. RangersRus ( talk) 23:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Conquest of Hadoti

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

Another "Conquest of X" article with 2-3 lines of passing mention: "In the battle that took place at Maholi many Hadas were killed and their families were brought to Mandu. The fort was handed over to Qadam Khan." Clearly it fails SIGCOV, not enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 10:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I found this, which has a whole page dedicated to the subject at page 122. Also search on Google Scholar locates "Sharma, R.K., 1985. MILITARY SYSTEM OF THE KOTA STATE (C-1250 to 1947 AD). Скорина и скориниана, 13, p.65." I can't view the second one so I can't get any comment on how much content is devoted to the subject. TarnishedPath talk 11:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ TarnishedPath that is the whole different event around 1436. The whole page except the last para deals with the conquest of Hadoti by Rana Kumbha, It's the only last para of 4 lines which covers relevant content:
    The political situation soon changed, when Mahmud Khilji came to throne in Malwa, He had undertaken several expeditions to bring Hadoti under his sphere of influence. Kumbha adopted a successful policy to give sufficient support to the Hadas against the invasions of the Sultan of Malwa. And that too doesn't describe the outcome. As I said it fails SIGCOV and it's just a meagre part of a different event. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 13:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    You're making an argument for updating the article, not deleting it. TarnishedPath talk 13:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    No I'm not. What I meant is that the given source is completely unrelated to this event which happened in 1459 not 1436 per above given source. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 15:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

New Zealand Comic con

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

This article is substantially covered in a subsection of Armageddon Expo, which this article links to in the lede. An uninformed reader may draw the conclusion that this is the article about Armageddon, which it is not. Removing the non-encyclopedic parts of this article would render it a copy of the Armageddon subsection.

This article was nominated for PROD previously but had as far as I can tell only little opposition; the reason was that it was a unique event. MrSeabody ( talk) 08:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Measure of Music (conference)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The sources are almost entirely PR-based or non-independent and affiliated with the conference and its founder. No actual in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, just press releases and blog posts. Previously PRODed by another editor, disputed by page creator. — Ganesha811 ( talk) 11:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Organizations. — Ganesha811 ( talk) 11:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Ganesha811: Hi, I'm the author of this article. Measure of Music (MoM) is not a company or organization, it's an annual event – do you think it shouldn't be held to the same standards as Wikipedia:NORG? Is there something more comparable we can explore? Many of the peer articles on the main Category:Music conferences list have the same caliber of PR based sources, which is where I got the idea to make this contribution. For reference, I mirrored other international reoccurring events like M for Montreal, Japan Music Week, Midwest Music Summit, and International Music Conference while researching and building this article for MoM. Thanks for your suggestions. Copeland.powell ( talk) 12:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    1. Ganesha811 had earlier suggested two criteria against which such a recurring event can be evaluated. Both require "significant coverage", see WP:SIGCOV. Let's check the very first source (musebycl.io): it is a site self-declared as "Home to Creative Marketing, Advertising News", clearly fails the "Reliable" criterion. Attempt to view the content (to other editors: disable the Javascript first!) is blocked by an enormous pop-up ad. Past the ad, an interview by the founder, clearly fails "Independent of subject". We are all volunteers here, very few people would check any further. I did: the second source (Technical.ly) is by the founder herself.
    2. Arguing that some other articles are not properly sourced either generally does not work, see WP:WHATABOUT (maybe they should eb deleted, too? maybe better sources exist, just not added to the article yet?).
    Викидим ( talk) 17:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and checking some of the references above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Викидим ( talk • contribs) 17:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

22nd Battle of Raigam Salpiti

22nd Battle of Raigam Salpiti (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Main article deleted as it was an uncontested PROD. Unfortunately can't PROD this as the PROD was contested. Clear WP:GNG and WP:NCRIC fail. AA ( talk) 12:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Deadliest Crash: The Le Mans 1955 Disaster

Deadliest Crash: The Le Mans 1955 Disaster (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also for the same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Prix: The Killer Years, by the same filmmaker.

Contested PROD. Editor added sources, only to add three which is not enough to assert notability of this non-notable television film to 2024 standards per WP:NF. One of those is WP:PRIMARY and the other is a TV guide recommendation. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 13:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Why should 3 sources not be enough to assert notability? How many do you wish? Or did I misunderstand and is it not the number but the nature of the sources you are not satisfied with? Anyway, you have now 6 (or 4 if you consider that 2 do not count (but a TV guide recommendation should imv count)) and they seem significant enough. Thank you. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 13:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Cunard added sources and deproDed the page (same nom). The coverage including critical commentary may be judged significant enough to show this is notable. A redirect to the event itself should be considered anyway (in a In film section). Also see https://www.cararticles.co.uk/uk-deadliest-crash-the-1955-le-mans-disaster.html (a review on what is technically a blog; the reviewer has 3340 articles listed there...) and https://www.autoweek.com/racing/more-racing/a1813276/deadliest-crash-dives-1955-le-mans-catastrophe/ or https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/the-rivalry-that-caused-the-deadliest-crash-in-motorsport-1973804.html among other things. (that might seem more than enough for GNG or for NFILM so MAYBE that implies that the other Afd, if that is indeed the same case, as the nominator states, should have had another outcome with a little bit of work...) - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Nobody could dispute that Cunard did a good job with the sourcing but even WP:BEFORE turned out nothing which led to this AfD. Reviewing the new sources above, Autoweek speaks little of the documentary, I cannot see if that is worthy of a review. Independent did better, a bit. And again, it talks about the disaster too. I cannot see how blogs count as reliable sources also. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 20:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    CarArticles : SPS expert sources may count or at least may be used.
    Autoweek speaks little of the documentary,? Autoweek's article's title is 'The Deadliest Crash' Dives Into The 1955 Le Mans Catastrophe which clearly means its main focus is on the film....It does speak sufficiently of it to be considered significant: Originally aired in 2010, the documentary above dives into the background of the race with some spectators and participants, but spends it the second half talking about the accident in graphic detail. For motorsports fans who haven't already seen it, this hourlong documentary is a must-watch -- note that viewers might find some of the footage disturbing.
    it talks about the disaster too. Obviously, yes, it's because the film is a documentary based on newly-found footage. They describe the new "evidences" as seen in the film.....
    The Independent article subhead is Newly found footage puts blame on British driver for a 1955 disaster that killed up to 120 at Le Mans....
    Anyway, I've added quotes from 2 of these sources to the page too + a mention in the The Routledge Companion to Automobile Heritage, Culture, and Preservation.
    Feel free to add more: some extra coverage is listed here but it's only identified and it implies some search, for which I won't have time; and also as I think I will leave it at that, as I consider I have done, here and on the page, what I could to show the film meets the requirements for notability and even mentioned an ATD. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, France, and United Kingdom. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as the article is now referenced to reliable sources coverage such as the Independent, Daily Telegraph, Autoweek and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Radford, Ceri (2010-05-17). "Worried About the Boy, BBC Two, Review". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

      The review notes: "At the opposite end of the subtlety spectrum was The Deadliest Crash: the Le Mans 1955 Disaster (Sunday, BBC Four), a documentary exploring the infamous motoring smash-up which killed at least 80 spectators (the exact figure is uncertain) when a car flew off the track into a packed grandstand. It didn’t take long to get to the point. Death! Disaster! Flying debris! Burning bodies! As soon as the opening credits had faded we were assaulted with archive images and eyewitness accounts of the whole gruesome panoply. It was like a cross between a video nasty and a mind-boggling trip back in time to a past that wasn’t just another country, but a different planet. ... This programme was brash but fascinating. Health and safety and PR may be seen as modern evils, but looking at footage of the race’s winner spraying champagne just metres away from the charred corpses of his fans, you can see why they became necessary."

    2. Clay, Joe (2010-05-15). "Digital choices". The Times. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

      The review notes: "Deadliest Crash: The Le Mans 1955 Disaster BBC Four, 9pm At 6.26pm on June 11, 1955, on the home straight early in the Le Mans 24-Hour race, the future British World Champion Mike Hawthorn made a rash mistake that caused Pierre Levegh's Mercedes 300 SLR to career into the crowd, killing 83 people and injuring 120 more. It remains the worst disaster in motor racing history and this excellent film (above) uses original footage and stills, along with eyewitness accounts to examine the chain of events to try to discover exactly what happened."

    3. Wren, Wesley (2017-01-24). "'The Deadliest Crash' Dives Into The 1955 Le Mans Catastrophe". Autoweek. Archived from the original on 2024-06-05. Retrieved 2024-06-05.

      The review notes: "Originally aired in 2010, the documentary above dives into the background of the race with some spectators and participants, but spends it the second half talking about the accident in graphic detail. For motorsports fans who haven't already seen it, this hourlong documentary is a must-watch -- note that viewers might find some of the footage disturbing."

    4. The other sources found in Mushy Yank ( talk · contribs)'s excellent research including the extra coverage listed here.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Deadliest Crash: The Le Mans 1955 Disaster to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 11:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Tibet Airlines Flight 9833

Tibet Airlines Flight 9833 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable accident. No sustained continued coverage, no lasting effects have been demonstrated and no in-depth coverage generated from the accident. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 14:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Battle of Doljești and Orbic

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

I could not find any sources to prove that these events took place in the dates mentioned, which would fail WP:NEVENT. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Very Important Party

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli ( talk) 08:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Saturne Party

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli ( talk) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 New Jersey earthquake

AfDs for this article:
2024 New Jersey earthquake (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Now that the dust has settled down it is quite evident that no lasting coverage exists for this. Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS applies. Run of the mill earthquake that is unnotable, this wouldn't be an article if it occurred anywhere else in the world Traumnovelle ( talk) 21:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and New Jersey. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for same reasons I stated in the previous nomination. This was an exceedingly rare event and regardless if it doesn’t have lasting coverage shouldn’t mean it isn’t notable. Lots of things more important then the earthquake took over as the top news in the weeks after.-- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 00:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Rarity is not notability.
    >Lots of things more important then the earthquake took over as the top news in the weeks after
    Because the event was just news, nothing more. Notable events get reporting outside of just news.
    WP:NEVENT is the relevant notability guideline here which has not been met. Traumnovelle ( talk) 01:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Are we sure there is no lasting coverage? by the way, the continued aftershocks are relevant. 2600:4808:353:7B01:1785:F9F3:5DC9:D12E ( talk) 01:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Continued aftershocks are not relevant to lasting coverage of the earthquake, or else this would be the '2024 New Jersey earthquakes' Traumnovelle ( talk) 01:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Aftershocks were deemed relevant for the 2024 Noto earthquake and 2024 Hualien earthquake. Besides the first reference isn't even about an aftershock. -- 2600:4808:353:7B01:1785:F9F3:5DC9:D12E ( talk) 01:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Yes it is about repairing the damage, routine for the event.
    The two other articles have references which show lasting impact and coverage such as [1] and [2]
    Also you are comparing earthquakes more than a hundred times the power with over a thousand casualties each to one that had not a single casualty. Traumnovelle ( talk) 01:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Trout Slap The sources demonstrate global coverage in news and scientific publications. The previous AfD closed as Keep just weeks ago and nothing has changed. It's all relative. For example, at a whopping 1,803 feet (550 m), High Point (New Jersey) is an article for the tallest mountain in New Jersey, which would be a pimple in California, Colorado or Alaska. This was the strongest quake in the state in 240 years, and I'd be more than comfortable with the pace of four New Jersey earthquake articles every millennium, and the next one appearing somewhere in the 2260s. So the AfD rationalization is that it's already weeks past the earthquake and there isn't daily coverage so we need to delete the article? Time to whip out the trout and thrash it as needed. Alansohn ( talk) 03:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Terrible example, that mountain has a state park and ski park, both of which confer notability beyond simply being a mountain.
    Maybe I missed a link but I do not see any scientific publications in the reference list. WP:NEVENT is the relevant guideline.
    WP:EVENTCRIT, fails that.
    WP:LASTING, gives quite a clear example as to why this is not notable.
    WP:GEOSCOPE 'such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article'
    WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE apply here. Traumnovelle ( talk) 04:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    WP:GNG is satisfied based on the scope and breadth of reliable and verifiable sources about the earthquake. The earthquake itself occurred mere weeks ago and it is far, far too soon to be whining about WP:PERSISTENCE, which explicitly says "this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not". Come back in a few years and we can discuss as a community. Until then, move on. Alansohn ( talk) 05:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I disagree, if it is too soon to determine notability then it is too soon to have an article. GNG is also a presumption of notability and the relevant criteria for this article is NEVENT. Traumnovelle ( talk) 05:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for the same reason I said the last time this article was elected. This was a very rare event, both in magnitude and location. I've still seen talks about the earthquake to this day, and I feel like this was an important event and should have a page dedicated to it. OurAfternoonMalady ( talk) 11:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article is well sourced per WP:SIGCOV. It was in the news for weeks. It will likely be in annual retrospectives in December. It is still being studied academically, and is exactly the type that will be in popular culture for years. Bad nomination and arguments to delete worthy of a trout slap. Bearian ( talk) 14:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sentencing of Donald Trump in New York

Sentencing of Donald Trump in New York (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This poorly referenced substub should be redirected to the small but better referenced section at Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York#Sentencing. Right now, we don't know what this will be, so we are crystall-balling stuff. No prejudice to this being restored as an article when the section grows, but there is no need for this to remain as a stand-alone article in the current form. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I will consider either putting it in my draftspace for incubation/protection. Currently im choosing to keep it up.
If i do put it in my draftspace, I will readd it to the wiki in 1 or 2 weeks before that.
~ Snipertron12 :3 ~ [| User| Talk| Cont|] 12:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Snipertron12: you shouldn't unilaterally move an article while an AfD is open. And if you wait for the AfD to close, and it closes as delete, there won't be anything to draftify as deletion follows closure usually pretty promptly.
Also, your intention to publish this again 1-2 weeks before sentencing is not materially different to where we are now, in that it will still be about an uncertain future event. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 13:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete - there is no way of telling as of now if his sentencing will be independently notable from his prosecution & conviction, so it's best to leave it all in one article. estar8806 ( talk) ★ 13:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete - No reason for an article on a future event; the Prosecution article has a sentencing section. David notMD ( talk) 15:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete - An ongoing current event might or might not warrant an article in Wikipedia. But starting a new article for every development turns Wikipedia into a forum for news bulletins, which it is not. Uporządnicki ( talk) 16:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete- per nom 2601:441:8284:1CC0:2CC7:8112:D93C:9FB3 ( talk) 21:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete - per nom. Everything in this article is covered and better sourced in the main article, so this is just a dupe. ruth Bader yinzburg ( talk) ★
Delete. There is no reason to split this from the main article at this point in time. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 15:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete It's WP:CONTENTFORK at this point. Prosecution, conviction and sentencing can all be covered in one place. Keivan.f Talk 17:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

XIX International Chopin Piano Competition

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a thing there's absolutely nothing of any significance to say yet. This is still about a year and a half away, so we obviously don't know who the prize winners or even the competitors are -- literally the only thing we can say about it at this point is basic competiton rules sourced to the competition's own self-published website about itself, which is not a notability-building source.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation next year if and when there's actually reliably sourceable stuff to say about it, but we don't already need a boilerplate placeholder article to exist now. Bearcat ( talk) 15:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: I have now added numerous sources and expanded the article. The competition will begin on 23 April 2025, which is less than a year. The Chopin Competition is the most important musical event in Poland and one of the most significant events in classical music. Creating an article at this point, also considering that the rules have changed considerably for this edition, which is surely of interest to the reader, seems to be justified. As more verified information becomes available closer to the event date, the article can be further expanded. I believe having a well-sourced preliminary article now is preferable to waiting until the last minute. intforce ( talk) 20:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The time for an article about an event is not "a year out", it's "when there's substantive things to say about it beyond just 'this is a thing that will happen'". Bearcat ( talk) 20:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Meh. This is crystallbalish but useful, and there are already some sources about the upcoming program. Yes, technically we might be justfied with dratifying this for a while, but seriously, this is make-work that is pointless. We know this event will be notable. Why waste time moving it out from mainspace and back?
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 Mannheim stabbing

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Nothing to indicate that this will generate significant lasting coverage. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC) TheLongTone ( talk) 14:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Germany. Skynxnex ( talk) 14:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Keep
    1. The event has a lot of news coverage
    2. There is a clear perpetrator who was caught on camera
    3. There are multiple victims
    4. The police have released a report on the incident in its immediate aftermath Salfanto ( talk) 15:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
You do know that this is only the first day of the event right? Salfanto ( talk) 15:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
That is all the more reason why we should not have an article on it. Traumnovelle ( talk) 21:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The attack has received widespread global attention and clear impact on the highest political levels in Germany for a politically motivated attack on notable Islam-critic Michael Stürzenberger. Clear indications that this will have significant lasting impact/coverage. See also Stabbing of Salman Rushdie and 2024 Wakeley church stabbing (bishop Mari Emmanuel) for similar recent attacks. Thismess ( talk) 16:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Widespread coverage. Obvious keep. Thriley ( talk) 17:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This nominator have a history of deletion nomination which fail to pass, its obvious that this guy have no idea about the deletion criteria Afif Brika1 ( talk) 18:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Why are you attacking the editor and not the nomination itself? I looked through his past nominations and they were all fine and consensus agreed with him/is agreeing with him. His AfD stats show 75%+ which is a fine number for AfD.
    As to the article itself, even though it may achieve notability in the future it has yet to. WP:TOOSOON applies here and we should not be creating these articles the minute these events occur. Thus I support the nomination in Delete (Or turning into a draft) until it is actually possible for notability to be ascertained. Traumnovelle ( talk) 21:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Not only agreeing with the editor above, but considering the past week of news regarding the surge of right-wing nationalism in Germany, this attack will surely stir something in the coming days/weeks.
Volkish Kurden ( talk) 19:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep as a clear case of WP:RAPID. Not even a day has passed since the event. The initial news coverage has not passed yet, and we're talking about lasting notability that can't really be proven until at least a few weeks later. The attack also involves notable activist and critic of Islam Michael Stürzenberger. Also considering the recent stabbing attacks in Australia ( 2024 Wakeley church stabbing and Bondi Junction stabbings) still in the news cycle and the current surge of right-wing nationalism in Germany, I think there will be signifiant news coverage in the next few days. 106.71.58.30 ( talk) 04:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notable people involved and the whole event was recorded which will of course circulate the internet for years to come, and therefore I think deserves a stand-alone article. Kiwiz1338 ( talk) 05:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep Clearly notable violent event with a famous person involved, multiple injuries and one fatality. Killuminator ( talk) 18:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep this article as it is a major event with where a known figure was attacked and one person was killed in the result of the attack. In my opinion this event is worth of having it's own wikipedia article Szymonexis ( talk) 12:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment:
  1. when a politician is attacked, it is notable and important for history/archive/future reference. Compare with shooting of Slovak prime minister.
  2. it already has very significant coverage not only in Germany but internationally - every major newspaper in Sweden ran a story.
  3. this will become a major thing in right-wing circles as well as anti-immigration circles. That makes a Wikipedia-article and factual foundation even more important.

83.185.46.97 ( talk) 07:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Plenty of national and international coverage, high-profile and public incident, multiple victims, etc. Johndavies837 ( talk) 12:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep no doubt in that in my opinion Braganza ( talk) 12:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Have any of the keep votes read WP:NOTNEWS. Altho having read that the first victim is notable I'd amend my opinion to a merge to this unpleasant individual's article. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment
  1. I know nothing about the person in question, but noted that you seem to hold unfavorable views of him. Quote: "merge to this unpleasant individual's article".
  2. is it possible that your negative views of the person affect your judgement?
  3. you are very alone in thinking that this shouldn't be a standalone article.
83.185.46.97 ( talk) 13:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
My opinion of the victim is neither here nor there. It does not affect my opinion that this is an event that will generate no lasting coverage. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • DeleteMerge to Michael Stürzenberger: This is a BLP violation. Low profile individuals have been named in this article as having committed crimes without any conviction being obtained. Per WP:BLPCRIME this shouldn't be happening. This needs to be sent to draft at the very least. However it would be better to merge any useful material to the Michael Stürzenberger article as they seem to be the only notable person in this incident. TarnishedPath talk 15:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • This event has caused a widespread media-echo, at least in the German-speaking countries. There's also an outrage, how this could happen. Yes, we are looking at a party/movement that is Islam-critical to Anti-Islamic, and attacker who seems to be from Afghanistan (so likely a Muslim), but who has lived in Germany for some time and is married to a German woman. It is likely that this event will stay in the heads of the people, and not be linked to one of the proponents of the party who organized the event where it happened. In that context, the focus should be to keep this article, and to amend what is missing from the German-language version, rather than deleting it.-- Eptalon ( talk) 22:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep. A multiple casualty incident by European norms which occurred amid heated sociocultural discussions in Germany and the continent, further exacerbated by the EP election. Borgenland ( talk) Borgenland ( talk) 16:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Update: 1 person is dead. Borgenland ( talk) 06:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a repository of news stories. Any !vote suggesting that it's notable based solely on news coverage should be discarded. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 17:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    As per WP:N(E), widespread coverage for an extended duration of time comprises notability. Newgrass 82 ( talk) 00:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Several people were stabbed and it resulted in the death of a police officer, furthermore the event recieved world wide news coverage. Durraz0 ( talk) 18:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Still meets WP:COVERAGE and has global coverage; meets WP:NEWSEVENT. -- WikiLinuz ( talk) 20:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • keep notorious victim, numerous sources, high level political reactions, possible influence on incoming elections. Diderot1 ( talk) 20:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It's an assassination attempt against a notable German Islam-critic, the attack caused many casualties, and the attack has been commented on by dozens of politicians and received widespread (and also international) coverage. This is clearly a significant event and not just a normal news story. Sarrotrkux ( talk) 21:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Yes, I have read WP:NOTNEWS. Going to WP:N(E) from there, my judgement is that this event is definitely significant and interesting enough to keep. Newgrass 82 ( talk) 22:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have read WP:NOTNEWS, too, and I think that this article is not an original reporting (it is quite well referenced), it is not a WP:ROUTINE event (the mass stabbing happened during a political rally coming just one week before hotly-contested European elections, in which immigration is an hot topic), for sure it is WP:NOTGOSSIP. P1221 ( talk) 08:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This is an important event which has received lots of international coverage. Moondragon21 ( talk) 16:304, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep and close. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Abstain per most above; see WP:SNOWBALL and just get this over with.-- ~Sıgehelmus♗ (Tøk) 16:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep I don't fault the nominator, but this article has grown a lot in the last few days as the coverage continues to expand and in my opinion it clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. Inter&anthro ( talk) 20:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment There's been another stabbing in the very same city, a far right politician is the target again so I think we can put a fork in this discussion and possibly expand the scope of the article to include the new stabbing as well. Killuminator ( talk) 14:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Korean excrement balloon incident

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

I nominated for deletion; think the content of the article should be merged into Balloon propaganda campaigns in Korea. Reasoning: there's just not much else to say about this incident other than what's in the few news articles about it. It falls into the context of the balloon propaganda campaign, and doesn't have enough separate notability imo. 104.232.119.107 ( talk) 01:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge as despite coverage from major media companies, it's yet another example of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. Duke of New Gwynedd ( talk | contrib.) 18:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - while it is marginally notable, a merger back would allow for better context. Bearian ( talk) 15:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Canadian Swing Championships

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

The three non-primary sources in this article contain only trivial coverage. A WP:BEFORE search for the event name in English and French turned up nothing usable. (In terms of precedents, there are currently no other articles on individual swing dance events, and I would expect to see one on the more significant International Lindy Hop Championships before this.) Sdkb  talk 20:25, 28 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! 22:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Progress Chapter Two: The March Of Progress

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

No reason why this small show would be independently notable from the parent company. WP:BEFORE didn't show this event was particularly notable. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello, thank you for the sincere feedback. However, I believe that a proper categorization and documentation of Progress Wrestling's "Chapter" flagship events should exist. Now I understand that the early chapters might indeed be less notable than the more recent ones but I believe they should be part of the project which has to benefit from clear continuity. The presence of only some of the chapters on the mainspace would disrupt it as this continuity should be sanctioned as a book with pages. Let me know what you think. Regards! JeyReydar97 ( talk) 21:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
We don't have articles on subjects that aren't notable simply because later similar articles might be notable. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Almost all of these events are also featured on WWE Network's broadcast system as VOD shoes as Progress has held business relationships with WWE. They're pretty popular on that streaming service. JeyReydar97 ( talk) 22:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No coverage in RS, nothing found now. Was a decade ago, likely no further coverage. I don't see any sourcing we can use. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    It has video coverage on Progress' Youtube channel. I also found written coverages from two trustworthy sites. One of them is 411Mania. They should be more than enough as references. JeyReydar97 ( talk) 22:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  •  Comment: Perhaps @ JeyReydar97: could combine a couple of these early events into a larger article? Mixed martial arts does something similar for articles such as 2020 in Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki. JTtheOG ( talk) 03:15, 28 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! 20:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ HHH Pedrigree: Thank you; I wasn't sure wether they had done it for wrestling events too. JTtheOG ( talk) 17:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Siege of Barwara (1757)

Siege of Barwara (1757) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The whole article relies on WP:RAJ and out dated sources ( WP:AGE MATTERS) and there is no mention of “Siege of Barwara (1757)” in the sources. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 09:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

WP:RAJ is not a policy or guideline. It is an essay on the quality of sources on the Indian caste system and those written by Britons or Briton diplomats and administrators or under the guidance and review of Briton administrators like Lepel Griffin, Michael MacAuliffe, Sir John Withers McQueen. Indian historians like Sarkar's sources are used because historians today depend on their secondary work. Sarkar is an eminent historian and is perfectly reliable. Source still needs to be reviewed and verified. RangersRus ( talk) 15:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Even if WP:RAJ doesn't applies here it is still not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS and this is the only source used in the article thus it fails WP:GNG too. Mnbnjghiryurr ( talk) 04:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. RangersRus ( talk) 16:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
If old sources have become obsolete due to coverage in new sources then AGE matters and it does not apply here. Multiple sources are expected but there is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage. RangersRus ( talk) 11:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Just found it at RSN. Hope this helps to evaluate the reliability of Jadunath Sarkar. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 16:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply

*Delete, it clearly fails WP:GNG & there is only one sourced used in this article (Fall of the Mughal Empire by Jadunath Sarkar) which is not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS. Mnbnjghiryurr ( talk) 03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. RangersRus ( talk) 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I had to wait to be able to find the source on the page for verification. Source by Sarkar has enough coverage from page 191 to 193 on the siege. The name of location is Barwada not Barwara (spelling error?). Page passes general notability guidelines. RangersRus ( talk) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as per Nom & it fails WP:GNG Chauthcollector ( talk) 12:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Mughal–Kashmir Wars

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

This article literally has no sources or content in it. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 05:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Rather than deleting the page, editors should work on it and improve it. It's an actual war provided with sufficient sources. Lightningblade23 ( talk) 10:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep The war is historically accurate. Citations and content can be added and the article can be improved but its deletion wouldn't be in good faith. EditorOnJob ( talk) 12:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete or Draftify. Poor, unreliable and unverifiable sources excluding two by Mohibbul Hasan and Majumdar. The complete page is from source by Mohibbul Hasan from page 183 to 186 that has a mention of two wars fought in 1527 won by Kashmir Sultanates and the other in 1528 won by Mughals. Majumdar source is used for mention of Khanua battle that has nothing to do with Mughal-Kashmir wars. None of the other sources have any ascription. The page numbers on source templates for Hasan are wrong. The creator of the page should hold back from primary sources like Chādūrah, Ḥaydar Malik who was an administrator and soldier under Mughal emperor in 17th century, Baharistan-i-shahi, a Persian manuscript written by an anonymous author, presumably in early 17th century, Tarikh-i Firishta written by Muhammad Qasim Ferishta presumably between 16th and 17th century and also Babur-nama. Page is also WP:SYNTH when you read a content written "The Mughals faced the Chaks at Naushahra and, despite early success, were defeated and forced to retreat back to India." No phases of wars are supported by reliable sources. Draftify vote is if the creator can bring on reliable sources to support many phases of wars to consider the page an actual full fledged Mughal-Kashmir Sultanate wars. RangersRus ( talk) 14:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Yet another WP:SYNTH like few other recently deleted pages revolving around the same subjects. Azuredivay ( talk) 15:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess recent contributions to the article since the deletion nomination says it has no sources and that is no longer true.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

1978 West Virginia judicial elections

1978 West Virginia judicial elections (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
1980 West Virginia judicial elections (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1982 West Virginia judicial elections (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The West Virginia judicial election articles for 1978, 1980, and 1982 all fail WP:NOTDB. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 05:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, as a malformed nomination. The justification given is an alias of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is fairly clear on what constitutes indiscriminate information, and none of the examples apply: a judicial election is not a "summary-only example of a creative work". It is not a "lyrics database". It is not an "excessive description of unexplained statistics". It is not "an exhaustive log of software updates". The third option mentions election statistics, but describes "unexplained" data taken out of context that might be too lengthy or confusing for readers: vote totals for each candidate are the opposite of that. WP:INDISCRIMINATE plainly does not apply to a straightforward description of an election. P Aculeius ( talk) 11:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    The spirit of NOTDB is that data should be presented with independent sourcing to explain its importance. These articles are purely election results. Maybe merging them into one article with a general description of WV judicial elections would meet NLIST, but as of now, I don't think that these meet notability guidelines and NOPAGE applies. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 17:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:ADHERENCE which says "the shortcut is not the policy". James500 ( talk) 15:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I've now explained a bit more above why I think it fails NOTDB; I agree that I should have provided more of an explanation in my initial rationale. It's also not clear to me what ADHERENCE is trying to get at. The implication of linking to the policy is that I'm incorporating it by reference. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 17:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I have struck my !vote in the absence of evidence of GNG. INDISCRIMINATE does not say anything about explaining importance. NOTSTATS says "statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing", which may be what the first sentence of INDISCRIMINATE is talking about. I don't think anyone could be confused by these election results. James500 ( talk) 19:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    The topic of West Virginia judicial elections satisfies GNG: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Only 1980 West Virginia judicial elections actually contains a single state supreme court election. James500 ( talk) 20:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    If that article is created, I would support a merge of the Supreme Court portion of the 1980 article to that page, and redirect the rest. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 20:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I do not know if I have time to create an article on West Virginia judicial elections during this AfD. In the absence of such an article, I think that at least some of the material on the state supreme court election in 1980 West Virginia judicial elections be merged to Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia#Elections. I am satisfied that the state supreme court elections satisfy LISTN. There is also coverage of Judge Thomas E McHugh in newspapers, and coverage elsewhere such as [11]. James500 ( talk) 17:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: An WP:ATD would be a redirect/merge to 1978 West Virginia elections, but that target does not currently exist. Curbon7 ( talk) 17:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all These are not notable elections - the West Virginia Circuit Courts are the lowest level of courts in the state, and we generally do not have articles for trial court elections in other states either. These barely receive even local attention, often unopposed as seen in several here. If the only source is the government's report of results, there is simply no basis for an article, as we are not a database of every minor election result. Supreme_Court_of_Appeals_of_West_Virginia#Elections could be expanded to have a subarticle for those statewide elections, but these fail WP:N. Reywas92 Talk 01:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all I do not think WP:NOTDB applies here - but I do not think they meet WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T· C 04:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Delete all: The elections in circuit court is rarely ever notable outside the county/circuit that the court is in. And sometimes not even that. West Virginia WXeditor ( talk) 23:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion due to the proposed Merge. But I can't close this as a Merge to a nonexistent article so there has to be some reassurance that said article will be created during this discussion or another Merge target article selected by consensus. Otherwise, this discussion will likely close as Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Miss Cosmo International 2024

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

Doesn't meet WP:EVENT Claggy ( talk) 22:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Claggy ( talk) 22:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Vietnam. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Page could be recreated once the event has been held, however. TH1980 ( talk) 00:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    It would be held. Just like in any other international pageant that is going to happen within the year, it's not too soon to create an article for this. Example of which is Miss Universe, which would be held in September/November (even if there's no clear date yet but there's an article for that. So, I'd disprove of that. I'd retain it.
    Suggestions would only include a few more citations and reliable references from the media/news. Take these into consideration before even deleting this. Thank you. Japemizen627 ( talk) 07:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

No please don't delete the page. The event will be held soon in October

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

85th Plenary Session of the Indian National Congress

85th Plenary Session of the Indian National Congress (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N, not a notable event. — Hemant Dabral ( 📞 • ✒) 17:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

* Delete: Based on my check, I searched for in-depth coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources to establish notability, but I couldn’t find any. The sources I found were just passing mentions and cannot meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 18:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC) * Delete. 3 sources on the page and none have significant coverage to warrant a full fledged page on the subject. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus ( talk) 14:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The article needs substantial cleanup but as the second-largest political party by membership in the democratic world a meeting like this is likely to be notable, in a similar sense to 2024 Democratic National Convention. We even have an article for the tiny 2024 Libertarian National Convention. The US Libertarian Party has less than 1 million members, the Indian National Congress has 95 million. I've conducted a few quick searches and located quite a bit of coverage from national newspapers in India such as this from The Hindu and this from the Times of India. Google News searches produce a lot of results, too. It appears the conference was quite significant for the party based on the coverage. AusLondonder ( talk) 16:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Comment: The Times of India can’t establish notability at all as per WP:TOI GrabUp - Talk 16:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, from a quick glance there is ample in-depth coverage in English media outlets. There is scope to expand the article, and outline the policy shifts that materialized in or through the event. It's worth noting that this is the national convention of a party that pulled 119 million votes in the last national election. -- Soman ( talk) 11:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - examples of in-depth coverage at India Today, NDTV, National Herald, The Wire, Business Standard, Business Standard, The Hindu, Hindustan Times. -- Soman ( talk) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Keep: Thanks for sharing these sources, Maybe my BEFORE was not great enought like you. I am convinced that the article meets WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 11:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
      I too changed vote but to Draftify as the page needs major work with all reliable sources given by Soman and AusLondonder. If we just vote for Keep, then no guarantee if anyone will improve the page. Creator of the page can take the feedback from here, improve the page and republish it. RangersRus ( talk) 19:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    National Herald is a Congress Party linked Newspaper. Does it qualify for a neutral, Independent reference source? — Hemant Dabral ( 📞 • ✒) 12:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify. After looking at search work by AusLondonder and Soman, page has potential to pass WP:GNG with some cleanup and expansion with reliable sources. Voting for page to Draftify for creator and other interested editors to improve the page and then submit for review to be published. RangersRus ( talk) 19:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Draftify is not intended as incubation for expansions. This article is a mini-stub, but a perfectly legitimate stub. There is no material in the current version of the article that warrants it to be draftified. See Wikipedia:Drafts#Moving_articles_to_draftspace. -- Soman ( talk) 11:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or draftify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 Pune car crash

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

WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOTNEWS, no significant coverage outside India and trivial commentary by a few politicians, possibly because it happened during the 2024 Indian general election. Borgenland ( talk) 07:50, 24 May 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 May 23. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 07:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As stated in WP:N(E), "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) [...] are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." There's nothing about this event that indicates it has (or will have) enduring significance. Ethmostigmus ( talk | contribs) 11:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    It will have enduring significance, we are seeing members of the current ruling party lauchpadding this case for the movement of judicial reform. 27.63.231.66 ( talk) 18:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Which coinciding with the general election, may as well be an electoral stunt that everyone will forget. Borgenland ( talk) 18:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    A significance in this case my friend is the fact of how it exposes the 2 different India. The minor in the case was let off in less than a day with nothing more than a month of social service and a puny essay to write on road accident on the account he is not an adult. The minor had been allowed inside 2 pubs and allowed to drive a porsche whichunder indian law can only be done once you are above 18. This makes this case have lasting value to the legal system. This is different from most crimes, accidents and is very notable due to the social media traction it gained. The only political or criminal connection comes as an MLA that is a member of indian parliament's son was in the car at the time and beat up by people at the venue of accident and the judicial system was exposed for its flaw in giving juvenile justice and the police did a bad job on this case. Killing of 2 IT proffesionals cannot be termed as a electoral stunt. PublicHelper1101 ( talk) 17:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Very much a routine automobile accident, you could replace "Pune" with almost any city around the globe and the story would be the same. NOTNEWS Oaktree b ( talk) 15:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I would not say so my dear friend for this accident has waters much deeper than most cases, it involves an MLA, a renowned builder and incompetency of a bribed police and hospital staff. The mom of the minor was reported to have swapped her blood making this veryyy different from an average automobile accident in las vegas etc. PublicHelper1101 ( talk) 17:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    The accident isn't notable, the investigation and allegations around it could be notable; that would be a different article. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Your comment makes no sense yet let me explain, This accident involves a builder's son crashing into 2 IT proffesionals at 3:30 AM at a speed of 200 km/h. Accused was handed to police and was giiven bail in less than a day without any notable punishment making this a notable accident. This article should not be deleted. Publichelper1011 ( talk) 05:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Automobile accidents are very common, run of the mill incidents, sure, this incident may have gotten a tad bit more attention from politicians and the news, but at the end of the day, its frankly not really news. - Samoht27 ( talk) 16:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    This incident is different from your run of the mill accidents. This time it involves rich parents saving a brat from rightful justice as he was released in less than a day and was given a punishment of writing a "run of the mill" essay and was entitled to a few days of community service. An average murderer is remanded to 2 years of juvenile custody I must add dear dellow samoht. PublicHelper1101 ( talk) 17:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It has got significant coverage for now. It will take sometime to see if it meets WP:LASTING. Ratnahastin ( talk) 17:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Delete: And until then, relevant policies stipulate that the incident is not notable, and an article on it therefore cannot be sustained. If this is still in the news two years from now, I expect anyone still interested can recreate it at that time. Ravenswing 15:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:RAPID. Not the right time to decide notability of the subject that has already got enough coverage. Srijanx22 ( talk) 19:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is incredibly MILL and probably didn't need the usual pointlessly rageful Republic/NDTV overcoverage which seems to be openly turning a simple vehicular death incident into exactly what they want. There won't be lasting coverage and it will likely end with private settlements and other justice currently happening now. Nate • ( chatter) 22:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Its may 30 today 1 week after the incident and News show that minor was released in 17 hours, Hospital staff was bribed of 3 lakhs, the minor's father and grandfather in police custody. thier uncle has ragebaited the public, minors mom has faked blood reports by swapping her own blood for her childs reminding us of drishyam 2 and its amazing climax. PublicHelper1101 ( talk) 17:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Still getting coverage. [12] ArvindPalaskar ( talk) 05:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete reiterate a minimal casualty toll, non-notable victims (that the suspect was driving a Porsche is mere WP:TRIVIA) and no significant coverage outside India. Borgenland ( talk) 06:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
This above comment is posted by the same editor who also nominated this article for deletion. [13] Ratnahastin ( talk) 06:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Stricken for emphasis. That's right. You need to sign + timestamp all nominations, Borgenland, which already count as your preference to delete (!vote). El_C 07:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Didn’t notice that in the starter. Thanks! Borgenland ( talk) 07:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
No worries, all good. El_C 07:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per NOTNEWS and above in general. The Kip ( contribs) 08:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for the reasons others have mentioned, if this is something that will become notable then it's WP:TOOSOON. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 10:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep To say that an article should be deleted only because it concerns a recent incident is not sensible. Should wait for some weeks before doing AfD in these cases. Shankargb ( talk) 15:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    It's not that it's recent so much as it's a completely run of the mill drunk driving crash that killed two people. It quite literally is not notable. The Kip ( contribs) 17:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    ... which was stated in the OP. What isn't sensible is to base an opinion at AfD based on cherrypicking only one element of the nomination. Ravenswing 17:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Run-of-the-mill car crash of which hundreds of the same scale occur every day. Just because something receives a small burst of news coverage does not mean it is notable. Curbon7 ( talk) 17:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    1 week after the incident, multiple arrest have been done in the case. The investigation for the mother is on way, bribe of 3 lakhs has been noted, police have said this is not an everyday car crash. PublicHelper1101 ( talk) 17:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    • My comment no longer applies as the crash, while still fairly run-of-the-mill, has clearly has had some sort of broader impact. Curbon7 ( talk) 21:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:SUSTAINED etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete run of the mill accident without the depth or extent of media coverage, such that it is not notable. The only thing setting it apart is the odd bail conditions, but that is insufficient to give it notability. Local Variable ( talk) 10:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    local variabled is unable to see the news i assume PublicHelper1101 ( talk) 17:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete doesn't seem notable to me at all. These types of crashes occur every day. Sadustu Tau ( talk) 10:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    sadustu tau must catch up to recent news. PublicHelper1101 ( talk) 17:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Being vague about this is not going to change my argument. Sadustu Tau ( talk) 20:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Also my comment was made before more recent developments, which do seem to make it more notable than usual, however. Sadustu Tau ( talk) 20:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep While vehicle accidents are not automatically notable, this one is a different case. 2024 elections are not really relevant for this incident. This car crash has gained significant worldwide coverage, [14] contrary to this AfD nomination. Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 16:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Doubtful over its sustainable coverage though. At this rate it is a mere eccentric news from abroad. Borgenland ( talk) 16:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete as it's basically a car crash, which will not generate sustained coverage. If it does indeed generate long-term coverage, it can be recreated. OhHaiMark ( talk) 16:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The case is in no way trivial. Each day has only got the case more coverage in national media. The involvement of politicians in the case has nothing to do with the General election. The Porsche case is a national phenomenon in its own right. In addition, the case continues to cause arrests and interrogation of multiple individuals involved presently.
Appu ( talk) 13:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep While Such accidents are prevalent worldwide. However, this news has got India-wide coverage and is still getting coverage.
~~TNS~~ ( talk) 17:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep (1)The case has garnered significant media coverage with each & every update of the case being telecasted and covered across the board. Multiple national politicians have already made comments on it during the ongoing 2024 Indian General Elections. Therefore the subject is already notable enough for an independent page. The incident is of national coverage and has already brought the discussion on the Judiciary and Police executives to the forefront. (2) Being a recent news, as per WP:RAPID it is better to keep the page for now since there is no deadline to delete the page. Moreover, if its not WP:SUSTAINED in future, it can always be deleted. (3) For WP:TOOSOON multiple developments have already taken place in the investigation with reactions from many notable people. Therefore it is not too soon and sufficient time has already passed. EditorOnJob ( talk) 13:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • keep the incident is clearly notable, and it passes Wikipedia:Notability (events). The incident is being covered all over India in reliable sources. Nominator's rationale "no significant coverage outside India is also inappropriate. Most of the murders, and missing persons cases (from all over the world) do not get international coverage, very few do. When the car crash took place, I thought the coverage was sensationalism, but later the decisions were cancelled, and now three generations are in custody source. The resulting coverage is now not sensationalism. According to this, (posted on 23, crash was on 19) it has grabbed national attention. The car crash has also reopened the investigation of a hit placed by Surndra Agarwal on a corporator through mafia/underworld don [15] Two doctors of state-run hospital were arrested source. These things do not happen with run of the mill car crashes. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SUSTAINED. If there are significant changes in popular media, legislation etc. because of this event over the next few years then we can recreate the article. Also to the nom, that "no significant coverage outside India" is definitely uncalled for. -- Lenticel ( talk) 01:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    This comment calls for deleting every case even those of deaths of head of state if they had no change to popular media, please use common sense brother lentical. PublicHelper1101 ( talk) 17:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    What a poor choice of analogy comparing a dead world leader with a local councilman bhai. You do need to make your arguments have more sense. Borgenland ( talk) 18:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a multinational news story. It is not about a car crash, but instead about social issues such as wealth avoiding legal consequences, bribery, rich young people using alcohol, the rights of common people versus rich, and others. This is not a routine report of an automobile collision, nor is it local, and the story is very likely to have ongoing updates because of further developments including the bribery accusations and accusations of corruption of doctors, police, and the courts. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not least because of the enormous BLP violations contained within, including claims of criminality and intent that have not been fully adjudicated and the publication of minors' and non-notable victims' names. If the topic eventually does receive sustained attention, it can easily be refunded, but right now it is doing far more harm to victims' families in addition to contributing to sensationalist non-NPOV political reporting. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    The topic is still viral on social media and spokesperson of multiple politcal parties, and news channel still report the incident and cover it about 10 days after the reported rage break in social media. PublicHelper1101 ( talk) 17:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep: This incident rather exposed a number of doctors and other people involved due to the public pressure which isn't a normal occurrence if it hadn't been public pressure the incident would have been like any normal accident out there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.89.170 ( talk) 16:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. The incident has recieved notable media coverage along with multiple independent sources covering the topic over a prolonged period. The Indian General elections have ended, the media coverage should be observed over the next few days in order to access whether it was a politcally motivated topic or a notable topic of interest. Keep it for the time being and continue the discussion for the a few more days. Xoocit ( talk) 23:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is still an active discussion ongoing here. I tagged the article as lacking NPOV but I'm also baffled by editors claiming this article is about " a routine automobile accident" as this article has been greatly expanded since its nomination. What matters is not whether or not editors believe a car crash is just news but whether reliable source establish this subject's notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per WP:RAPID It has got significant coverage till date. The question whether it is WP:LASTING will be only known in due course. The trial has to take place .Hence for now it is keep. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 09:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep This is not a random car crash but a unique one. It is still getting enough coverage and this coverage is going to happen for a longer period of time. Georgethedragonslayer ( talk) 15:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This incident has caused a stir in India like no other car crash has. Deeper themes of the exploitation of the poor by the rich with money (rich kid killed the poor, but almost got away with it by bribing with money) exist, and it also highlights the injustices that India’s current legal/police system allows. Coverage by many major Indian news providers still continues, alongside social media discussions by citizens. JayTea2910 ( talk) 15:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and news coverage alone does not demonstrate notability. Come back after the news coverage ends and there are articles explaining how significant the fallout was. Creating articles for events before that happens is irresponsible. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 17:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Appallingly written, but clearly extremely notable and will continue to be extremely notable in highlighting preferential treatment of the rich in India's justice system. So yes, contrary to claims above it's already very clear that this will have enduring significance. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify. WP:BLPCRIME advises that editors should seriously consider not creating articles about living people accused of a crime, before they have been convicted, as they are presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law. It is too soon to have this article. Allow the judicial process to play out first. - Cameron Dewe ( talk) 12:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Cameron Dewe: Hi. this article isn't a BLP, it is about a car crash and aftermath. The article doesn't even name the accused perp. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Usernamekiran: True, the article is not a BLP but WP:BLPCRIME applies to all articles. The same consideration is set out at WP:PERPETRATOR, too. The article is about a fatal vehicle collision in which two motorcyclist have died. In most countries that makes it a double homicide, which is a crime, not just a "car" crash. Several other people who assisted the perpetrator are named in the article and they are also accused of committing crimes. WP:BLPCRIME applies to them too. - Cameron Dewe ( talk) 00:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The article is obviously biased but the incident has pretty wide coverage across India, and there appears to have been ramifications for social discourse in India about corruption, rule of law and wealth inequality stemming directly from this incident. Cyali ( talk) 02:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I'm all for shaming the rich and powerfully connected, but I'm not sure that has been the consensus since at least 2007. Argue amongst yourselves, but please ping me if there has been a new precedent created by keeping this article. Bearian ( talk) 15:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep per comments above. Notable and unique event, with masive media coverage. Also create a couple of redirects to the page for wider accessibility. Pharaoh496 ( talk) 08:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • this is an update, and significant coverage in reliable source on the next day of general elections. Signifying that previous coverage was not sensationalism. It has retained sustained coverage. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 Austrian Open

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

$5000 tournament at bwf international level which doesn't meet the notability criteria WP:GNG, WP:NSPORTS and WP:NBAD. The only notable ones which get enough coverage in notable websites are World Tour tournaments.

Moreover the tournament winners are already mentioned here in Austrian International page as each of those editions can't be created on their own due to notability issue. zoglophie •talk• 08:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete, was unable to find non-primary sources. ✶Qux yz ✶ 16:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify – As WP:ATD. The event is ongoing and the article was recently created, if there are more sources they can be added accordingly. Svartner ( talk) 22:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 12:50, 30 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 merge‎ to Emmanuel Mwambulukutu. in case there is information in this article that is not in the target article. Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2007 attack on Emmanuel Mwambulukutu

2007 attack on Emmanuel Mwambulukutu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of WP:LASTING - unfortunately a lot of violent crime happens in South Africa, not every attack is noteworthy. BrigadierG ( talk) 23:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment an attack on an ambassador is more notable than a random attack, but unless there was some lasting impact, I'd probably agree with Nom. 08:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete the diplomat may well be notable to have his own article, but not this event in particular I would say. Uhooep ( talk) 14:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Emmanuel Mwambulukutu used to be an article on the diplomat before it was redirected to this newly-created page on the 2007 attack. It wasn't in great shape, but with most of the sources dead, I can't say much definitively on his personal notability other than it's probably borderline. The attack probably isn't notable enough on its own, but I didn't do any real research into it, so I'm not placing an actual !vote. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment if Mwambulukutu was a Member of Parliament from 1985-2000 then why was the article binned in the first place. That would make him notable. Even if the article was a mess it could still be improved. Uhooep ( talk) 06:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment I have restored his bio. He is clearly a notable politician having been an MP in the Tanzanian Parliament. Perhaps any non-duplicated prose from this afd can be transcribed there where appropriate. Uhooep ( talk) 14:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Emmanuel Mwambulukutu, not enough content to stand on its own. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Emmanuel Mwambulukutu. This is something that happened in his life and should be part of his biography. We don't split random events in someone's biography off to their own articles unless there's so much to write about that it's impractical to keep it in the bio. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 17:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There is no point in merging. All the content is present in the main article. XabqEfdg ( talk) 00:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Doesn't need a separate article and all info is already in the Emmanuel Mwambulukutu article. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:29, 3 June 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.

Bermuda Smash Invitational

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

Non-notable cricket tournament which fails WP:GNG, WP:NCRIC, and WP:EVENT. AA ( talk) 13:32, 22 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! 20:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2005 Kavatshi Airlines Antonov An-26B crash

2005 Kavatshi Airlines Antonov An-26B crash (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Accident doesn't demonstrate needed notability for an article. Fails the general notability guideline, the event criteria, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and doesn't demonstrate any lasting effects. Whilst the event does have coverage (minimal), the majority of them are in french with all of them being short stories. I haven't been able to find any coverage post-2005 involving this accident. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 12:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

•Keep Yet again another Antonov accident that doesnt fail WP:NOTNEWS, an accident with 11 fatalities is not an everyday occurance. Lolzer3000 ( talk) 14:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Just because an event doesn't fail WP:NOTNEWS doesn't mean it automatically gets a keep. No lasting effects were demonstrated from the accident. It has been 18 years since the accident and the accident has not demonstrated any (long-term) impacts. The event does not have significant nor reliable coverage.
Per WP:EVENTCRIT:
  1. Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. Event does not fulfill this criteria.
  2. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below). No widespread impact or coverage in diverse sources with no analysis of the accident.
  3. Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event. Event has limited coverage.
  4. Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Nothing inherently notable about this accident even if tragic.
Post-2005, I haven't been able to find any coverage regarding this accident thus failing WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 15:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
an accident like this is indefinetly going to fail the 10-year test that many deletion authors go by, no accident has continued coverage over 19 years. Lolzer3000 ( talk) 21:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
For sure no accident will have continued coverage for over 19 years but an accident should at least be mentioned/ talked about for at least a year especially for an accident with that many fatalities. All news sources are primary sources which means it is impossible to source reliable secondary sources. All news sources only state the circumstances of the accident without any analysis of the accident failing WP:INDEPTH.
The event fails the general notability guidelines as it has no significant coverage and no reliable secondary sources. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 12:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Agreeable here, i can only find a singular source covering it 6 days later, linked below, there is an in depth summary in 2005 in aviation so the general deletion of the article itself wouldnt be a problem because the information is still pertained in the summary.
[16] (the mentioned link) Lolzer3000 ( talk) 16:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notability issue needs more attention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 05:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete No evidence of continued or widespread coverage that would assist in meeting EVENTCRIT. No evidence of meeting GNG. Triptothecottage ( talk) 09:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Mention it in a list of aircraft crashes instead. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 17:21, 2 June 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. There's no support here for draftification. But if you make a request at WP:REFUND they might be willing to restore this article to Draft space. Know that it would need to meet approval by an AFC reviewer, if put directly in main space, it would be subject to CSD G4 speedy deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet

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

Poor attempt of the author to keep Pala Tibetan War from AFD. Same content with different title. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War. Imperial [AFCND] 14:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Devapāla came into conflict with Tibet, there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Raja Dharma- pala to submit. Devapāla also may have come to clash with them and defeated them. [1]
  • Devapāla might have come into conflict with Tibet; there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-Srong-Ida-Btsan and his son Mu-teg-Btsan-po subdued India and forced Dharma- pāla to submit. Devapāla also may have clashed with them and defeated them [2]
Based Kashmiri ( talk) 15:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Please stop listing down this big {{tq}} here. It was already a mess at the earlier discussion. Comment down if you've any possible arguments that could potentially save the article. I am pretty sure you haven't read what WP: NOTABILITY, and this reflects everywhere in the AFD. Long paragraphs are not the factor that determines whether it passes GNG or not. And I can see you've duplicated the text twice here. Imperial [AFCND] 19:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC) reply
This event is notable and has received significant coverage in Reliable Sources ( WP:RS) and it passes WP:GNG & WP:SIGCOV and this isn't WP:OR since reliable sources mention the event as Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet.
Also what do you mean by "And I can see you've duplicated the text twice here."?? I gave you two reliable sources which mentions the event in a similar way. Based Kashmiri ( talk) 04:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Based Kashmiri, what you've done is exposed plagiarism. They mention the event in a similar way because one source plagiarized the other, not because this is a conventional way to write about this. -- asilvering ( talk) 19:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC) reply
As per the WP:DEL-REASON guideline, there is no reason to delete this article and I have provided multiple reliable sources about this event here in the replies below. Based Kashmiri ( talk) 11:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Do we have evidence that one of these sources plagiarised the other? Cortador ( talk) 06:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Sinha, Bindeshwari Prasad (1974). Comprehensive History Of Bihar Vol.1; Pt.2.
  2. ^ Diwakar, R. R. (1958). Bihar through the ages.
  • Delete. This is obviously a recreation of the previously deleted article. It does have a better title, in that it is no longer claiming there was a "Pala Tibetan War", but this is the same issue. We can write about this hypothetical conflict (one of the sources you list above even says "might have"!) on Devapala (Pala dynasty). If eventually we find sources to justify a separate article, we can spin out out from Devapala (Pala dynasty). But we did not find those sources in the last AfD, so I doubt we will find them here either. While I'm looking at that article, I note that we also have the sentences There is nothing impossible as the Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Dharmapāla to submit. Therefore, Devapāla must have also clashed with and defeated the Tibetan kings. Not only does this not follow the sources (our article says "must have", while neither source says so), it is obviously plagiarism. -- asilvering ( talk) 19:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    This is not a recreation of the previously deleted article, also this article doesn't have any issues like that article, if you think there is any issue in this article then list them down.
    The previous article had issues with the "Dharmapāla's Conflict with Tibetans" section and the "Conflict with Nepal" section, which is excluded from this article. This article focuses on the conflict between Devapala and Tibet, with reliable sources mentioning the event as "Devapala's Conflict with Tibet." The main problem with the previous article was the uncited title, but this article provides reliable sources to support its claim. Based Kashmiri ( talk) 15:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I don't mean "it literally contains the exact same words as the previous article". If that were the case, it could just be nominated for speedy deletion. I mean "it is in effect the same article with the same problems", which is true. At least one of the two reliable sources you brought up above appears to be plagiarized, so not only is this not two separate sources with in-depth coverage, it's only one source with very brief coverage. This can easily be written about on Devapala (Pala dynasty) if necessary. (But I'd advise against plagiarising a plagiarised source to do so.) -- asilvering ( talk) 19:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    This article cannot be deleted for the reasons you've provided, as per the Wikipedia deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON.
    Additionally, here are some additional reliable sources about this event:
    Based Kashmiri ( talk) 11:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    These sources do not support your case. -- asilvering ( talk) 17:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Then explain how? Also you still haven't given any reasons to delete this article from as per the Wikipedia's deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON. Based Kashmiri ( talk) 04:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    The reason for deletion is simple, and it is the most common deletion reason that exists: this does not pass WP:GNG. We need multiple reliable, secondary sources that discuss the topic in depth. -- asilvering ( talk) 10:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply

:Delete per asilvering and Imperial Okmrman ( talk) 04:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. Owen× ☎ 05:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

They do not have any valid reason to delete the article, Please provide a valid reason from WP:DEL-REASON. Based Kashmiri ( talk) 08:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Okmrman And I just checked your User contributions and noticed you have voted for deletion for every single AFD you had discovered EVERY MINUTE, without even reading anything. Based Kashmiri ( talk) 08:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Both @ Asilvering and @ ImperialAficionado haven't provided any valid reason to delete this article from WP:DEL-REASON, how can you agree with them? Based Kashmiri ( talk) 08:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:14, 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, Owen× ☎ 05:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete , this is simply not notable and has wrongly been re-created as an article with a different name. If this goes on a topic ban would be in order for the editor. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note to closer: I think I can improve this article based on the concern raised in this discussion, let me work on this article further. I'd request the closer to please draftify it so I can improve this article. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 04:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I don't see enough evidence that this needs a standalone article. Even if it does when all history is put together, it's clear the author does not yet have the requisite experience to write that article. It would have to be started from scratch and by a more experienced editor, which can be them in the future, but I think deleting is best for now to put an end to the disruption. Usedtobecool  ☎️ 03:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: There's so much WP:Synthesis present in these creations. IMHO the new creation seems to dovetail somewhat with the old page's sources, events, and personalities. But so far, there's a general consensus among other content-area editors this material has no place in pagespace (yet, if at all). The page creator's "gaming" behavior in recreating the same basic pagespace without violating specific prohibitions, seems by itself a behavioral issue, and several times repeated. BusterD ( talk) 16:50, 4 June 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

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Events&oldid=1227442597"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE