Select Page

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Events

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. 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.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Events. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


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

Events

2022 Extinction Rebellion House of Commons protest

2022 Extinction Rebellion House of Commons protest (edit | 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)

A single day protest without much impact and significance probably fails WP:EVENTCRIT A1Cafel (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AliensFest

AliensFest (edit | 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)

Not convinced that this student conference is notable. As far as I can see the Indian news sources references are mostly PR churn JMWt (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article appears relatively under sourced for its size, and the conference’s yearly attendance is only on average a couple thousand people. Also appears to be hardly notable outside of local media.
IiSmxyzXX (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Flight 052P

United Nations Flight 052P (edit | 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. A landing accident with no casualities created by a user who makes stub articles that usually get deleted. -Bloxzge 025 ツCanada — Preceding undated comment added 2:02, 21 April 2024 (EDT)

  1. ^ A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.
  2. ^ Per WP:GNG, WP:WHYN and WP:EVENTCRIT, we would need significant secondary coverage[a] and/or in-depth coverage of the event. None of the sources really go beyond reporting that the plane crashed and the subsequent reactions like this or this. Then there's this article by FlightGlobal but it's just repeating what Rosaviatsia released in a statement and there's no actual analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis behind it, hence the majority of sources are primary. This fails WP:NOTNEWS#1 which states that 'Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source, which is basically what the news articles are. There's also no continued coverage of the accident post-August 2020.

Krishi Kumbh 2018

Krishi Kumbh 2018 (edit | 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 regional agriculture conference fails WP:NEVENT for lack of continued coverage (it seems to have had a burst of coverage around the event) and fails WP:GNG for lack of reliable secondary source coverage (the only sources in the article and in a WP:BEFORE search are unbylined, press-release-driven churnalism articles in WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources). Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World Meditation Day

World Meditation Day (edit | 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 am not seeing any reliable-source secondary coverage of this UN General Assembly-declared awareness day for a pass of WP:GNG. Like the sources in the article, the sources in the WP:BEFORE search are all unbylined WP:NEWSORGINDIA churnalism. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Greco-Persian Wars

List of Greco-Persian Wars (edit | 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 problematic because it deviates from Roman-Persian Wars and Seleucid-Parthian Wars Iranian112 (talk)

Could you elaborate a tad bit more, this is kind of vague. What do you mean deviates? Gaismagorm (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page deviates from Greco-Persian Wars and mentions the Seleucid–Parthian Wars and Byzantine-Sassanian wars, which are not part of the Greco-Persian Wars Iranian112 (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, this refers to the wars of the Greek states against the Persian states Rxsxuis (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If they aren't, we don't need to delete the whole article, we just need to fix it. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water and all that. Gaismagorm (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But if we remove Seleucid–Parthian Wars Byzantine and Byzantine-Sassanian wars from the article, a total of 5 war remain, and there is no need for this page at all. Iranian112 (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it better to redirect to Greco-Persian Wars. Iranian112 (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This list covers the period of all wars between the Greek and Persian states. There is no reason to remove the Seleucids and Byzantium from it. Rxsxuis (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Byzantine-Sassanian Wars should be listed as conflicts between the Persians and Romans, not the Persian-Greek Wars. Iranian112 (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And there is no need to create a list for the conflict between two ethnic groups. Iranian112 (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KapCon

KapCon (edit | 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 appear to be notable. I can't find any independent, reliable sources. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Fallon, Nevada shooting

2018 Fallon, Nevada shooting (edit | 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)

A mentally incompetent man shoots two people, killing one. Do we really need to record that here for eternity? Are we helping either of the BLPs involved in this by naming them here? Yes, it got some attention, news loves shootings and trials, but in the end this has no lasting impact, no new laws, no criminal gangs uncovered, no mastermind behind bars... Fram (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2028 United States Senate election in Ohio

2028 United States Senate election in Ohio (edit | 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)

feels WP:TOOSOON since Vance was actually elected as VP, so all sources are basically about the 2026 election. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:TOOSOON to know if the US will still have democratic elections in 2028.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per reasons above. Far too soon for an article to be written, especially when it’s candidateS haven’t been confirmed yet.
IiSmxyzXX (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Squid Craft Games 2

Squid Craft Games 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, with no significant-coverage regarding this event beyond the fact that it happened. The sources in the article also seem rather questionable at best (Invenglobal, Softonic, Streamscharts, etc.) And once again, they don't seem to say anything beyond the fact that this thing happened, or who won it. λ NegativeMP1 19:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Apex municipal election

2025 Apex municipal election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a smalltown municipal election, not properly sourced as a notable event. As always, Wikipedia does not indiscriminately maintain an article about every single municipal council election that happens -- we can keep articles about mayoral and city council elections in major cities whose elections can be reliably sourced as notable events, but do not routinely keep an article about every single municipal election that happens in every town or city across the board.
But the referencing here consists entirely of directly affiliated primary sources -- the town council website, the self-published websites of council candidates and the self-published Substack newsletter of an incumbent town councillor in one of the seats that isn't up for reelection this year -- which are not support for notability, and absolutely no evidence of WP:GNG-building coverage in reliable sources has been shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sack of Amadiye

Sack of Amadiye (edit | 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 can't find any academic sources to support this article. The article loosely relies on one source, a collection of letters written by a British merchanteer, Henry James Ross. Ross never mentions a year for this event and isn't even clear the raid occurred at Amadiya. The second source the "Missionary Herald" mostly just talks about how the local villages were terrified of Nestorians on page 53. Annwfwn (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the death of Pope Francis

Reactions to the death of Pope Francis (edit | 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)

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Responses to events, disasters, deaths &c. are not inherently notable. The article is little more than a list of boilerplate expressions of condolences from prominent persons and governments almost none of which have any enduring significance It's a glorified quote farm. A merge discussion was opened but appears to be going sideways with little participation so I'm opening this with the hopes of getting a little more participation from the broader community. FTR, I am fine with merging a handful of these, such as declarations of official state mourning into Death and funeral of Pope Francis. But 95% of this is just a waste of cyber ink at best and fancruft at worst. No need for a redirect. Merge the few that are worth keeping and delete the page. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Keep this as this article DOES pass Wikipedia:GNG AND passes the WP:NOTA guidelines. This may get merged. 47.132.117.15 (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)— 47.132.117.15 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Not only does it pass Wikipedia:GNG and WP:NOTA guidelines, calling it a glorified quote farm is misleading and frankly offensive. Pope Francis was a significant and sometimes divisive international figure in contemporary history and as such the reactions to his passing are "fancrust." I am all for mergeing this article with the extended article on Pope Francis' funeral and the following period of mourning that takes place but even if that were not to happen, I think the existent of the page is merited as it meets the standards and follows precident. Lafarrer3 (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Article clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NOTA as stated above. Also, with the ongoing funeral, more reactions from notable figure or organizations may arrive, so it's best we wait an extend the article. Otherwise, if all else fails, merge with Death and funeral of Pope Francis. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 19:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the quote farm There is nothing of substance to any of these snippets. Seriously, what does anyone learn by stating here that the South African president said Francis made "the Church and the world a better place". Saying this this passes GNG is meaningless. Of course the concept of reactions is notable, but that doesn't mean we need a massive list that says "expressed his condolences" more than 80 times. We moved beyond this sort of repetitive statements a long time ago and generally do not do these anymore, and I see no reason to maintain this in this format even for the Pope's death. Pick significant examples and themes to provide or summarize without needing every single one that doesn't add to our understanding. Reywas92Talk 20:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete As in the case of Queen Elizabeth II, I think it's a good idea to keep two separate pages, given the size of the reactions and the overall proportion. I believe that adding another page (such as the funeral page) makes the page too long, so it's two independent pages.Mtvdanilo (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just because something meets notability doesn't mean it should have an article.
Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 21:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If its notable, then there has to be a reason for it to not be its own article Redacted II (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think some of these comments are notable enough to create an article. StormHunterBryante5467⛈️ 21:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It makes no sense to delete it Yesyesmrcool (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • edit down and merge back These reaction articles are mostly junk because most such reactions are extremely WP:RUNOFTHEMILL; most of them are just not notable. In this case there are a few, a few, that have attracted attention in their own right, and those which have attracted such attention should be mentioned back in the main article's section on his death. But mostly it's a case of the usual WP fault of being unable to keep things short and thus creating sprawling and often repetitive heaps of prose which do not serve the reader. Mangoe (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redacted II (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all reasons above Underdwarf58 (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close: The pope has died yesterday, and we're still in the process of dealing with the funeral, the reactions, the lasting legacy and all that. At this point, this seems a valid fork of the "Death of..." article. We may revisit this in some months, once the dust has settled. Cambalachero (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, death is extremely notable, and the reactions are also notable. At the very least Merge with Death and funeral of Pope Francis, as the reactions are still important to the event. Gaismagorm (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, then merge back once more info comes to light. He literally died 2 days ago (as of me writing this), I don't quite think it's quite the appropriate time to have an article just yet.
Madeline1805 (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Death and funeral of Pope Francis. This content is certainly important, but not enough to the point where it needs a standalone article. JeffSpaceman (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Death and funeral of Pope Francis per comments of JeffSpaceman. Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IiSmxyzXX (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mardin

Battle of Mardin (edit | 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)

Unverifiable, from the same editor who gave us Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Rawandiz with the same issues.

This is a battle in 1833, but the source doesn't mention 1833 or Mardin[1]. I can't find any evidence for this battle (there was some action around Mardin in this period, but nothing to actually support this specific event). Fram (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I agree that there may be some ambiguity regarding the exact date and the name of the battle. However, the sources I included clearly indicate that Muhammad Pasha of Rawanduz captured Mardin from Ottoman control during his western campaign. While the exact year 1833 may not be directly stated in every source, it is a reasonable approximation based on the timeline of his military actions, particularly following his operations in 1832.
The article does not attempt to fabricate an event but rather to document a historical moment that is mentioned briefly in the context of his broader campaign. Given that, I believe the article can be improved with clarification and attribution, rather than deletion. I’m open to revising the title or content to better reflect the source material, such as renaming it to Capture of Mardin (1830s) or merging it into the article on Muhammad Pasha’s military campaigns if that’s more appropriate. MHD1234567890 (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. You just need to stop creating such fabrications, or you will be forced to. Your main source is this, which mentions Mardin 6 times, none of them in relation to a battle (page 134 comes the closest, but doesn't support this article either). The force of 20,000 people is mentioned once in 1838, as a force of Khan Mahmud, so unrelated to this article. Fram (talk) 10:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, on the Mardin city page itself, it has a mention of this battle, but its only just one mention, and the dates dont even match up on the grand vizier page as well, it says 1835, not 1833. Shaneapickle (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As mentioned above, there are obvious verifiability issues with some references directly failing verification, which is further complicated by the total lack of page numbers. This appears to be a recurring issue given this is not the first article created by MHD1234567890 to be nominated for deletion. Moreover, in their own words, the battle is mentioned briefly in the context of [the] broader campaign. They appear to be unaware of Wikipedia's notability guidelines and policies: WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, or WP:NEVENT. A brief mention is not "significant coverage" or a demonstration of an event's significance. I was unable to find any in-depth sources that provide significant coverage of the event. Aintabli (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I don’t see any in-depth covering reliable sources. Mccapra (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rawanduz Revolt

Rawanduz Revolt (edit | 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)

Like all articles created by this editor (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Rawandiz), this one seems to fabricate pseudohistory from some sources which mention something vaguely related at best, but without any sources about the actual subject. Fram (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, but I want to clarify that all the sources used in the article do mention that Muhammad Pasha of Rawanduz launched a revolt, and they describe it as a successive or multi-phase conflict involving resistance against Ottoman authority. While the event may not always be labeled in English-language sources as the “Rawanduz Revolt,” that does not mean it did not happen or that it lacks historical basis.
This revolt is well known among the Kurdish people and is documented in several academic and regional sources—what may appear “vague” in English sources is more clearly established in local or specialized historical literature. The purpose of the article is not to invent history, but to present events that are verifiable through multiple references, even if the naming conventions differ.
I believe that instead of deletion, the article could benefit from improving the sourcing format, adding inline citations, and possibly clarifying the terminology used, but dismissing it outright undermines a notable episode of Kurdish-Ottoman relations. MHD1234567890 (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[2] mentions Rawanduz once, not in the context of a revolt though. You use this blog, an unreliable source, throughout the article, e.g. to claim 70,000 death in a massacre. The blog post mentions 10,000. If there are no sources which label it the "Rawanduz Revolt", then it is WP:OR to invent such a title for it, whatever "it" is. Fram (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The term Rawanduz (also spelled Rawandooz, Rawandiz, Rowanduz, or Ravandooz) refers not only to the region but also to the ruling family of Muhammad Pasha, who is central to this historical episode. The title Rawanduz Revolt is a logical and concise way to refer to this complex series of events, even if some sources describe it under different terms like the Soran Revolt. Regardless of the title, all the sources converge on the fact that a major revolt led by Muhammad Pasha took place, and each of them describes various aspects—be it military campaigns, conquests, or resistance against Ottoman authority.
If needed, I can provide additional reliable sources that explicitly refer to his revolt or rebellion. Regarding the Yazidi massacre, the blog cited contains a testimony, and that figure (70,000) is in fact echoed in multiple other sources—not just the blog. Even a quick check across Yazidi history sources shows the recurrence of this same number.
The use of this terminology is not original research but an editorial decision to group well-documented historical events under a coherent and searchable title. MHD1234567890 (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the name Muhammad Pasha, referring specifically to Mir Muhammad Pasha of Soran, appears over 60 times in the first source you referenced, more than 20 times in A People Without a State by Michael Eppel, and over 60 times again in The Kurdish National Movement by Wadie Jwaideh. And these are only three of the many scholarly sources available. To downplay this revolt as “minor” is to overlook the substantial amount of academic attention dedicated to Muhammad Pasha’s campaigns and the broader context of Kurdish resistance during this period. His revolt was not an isolated or trivial episode—it was a major confrontation with both Ottoman and regional powers, well documented through various military actions, regional expansions, and social upheaval. The article reflects this historical significance. MHD1234567890 (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Shaneapickle (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is attempting to describe Muhammad Pasha of Rawanduz's conquests. Convenient the article stops two years before the Ottoman Empire defeated Muhammad Pasha and he was traipsed off to Constantinople to meet with the Sultan and mysteriously "disappeared" on his way home. There are plenty of scholarly works on Muhammad Pasha's life and military conquests but the conflict with this article - it's generally agreed that his conquests, and eventual capture and disappearance signaled the death of the Soran Emirate

My sources:

  • pages 49-51[1]
  • and pages 55-60 here [2]

Annwfwn (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 San Diego earthquake

2025 San Diego earthquake (edit | 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 indication of notability or damage in the article. Luckily it seems to have been unimpactful so an article isn't needed. The elephants are oddly the subject of the most coverage but in that case should be on San Diego Zoo or some variant; the earthquake itself is not notable. Departure– (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:SIGCOV. Not significant enough to merit a single article, most cases focuses on the San Diego Zoo elephants, not the quake's impact in the rest of Southern California. This isn't "2025 San Diego Zoo elephant alert circle incident". ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong High End Audio Visual Show

Hong Kong High End Audio Visual Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources in article are Template:Third-party violations. Sources I found online seem to be run-of-the-mill reporting, and don’t say anything noteworthy about this event. Roasted (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Lee, O-lee 李奧李 (2011-08-09). Lau, Tat-yan 劉達仁 (ed.). "率先預告 新一代 3D 投影機啟動！ 下半年影音話題 2011香港高級視聽展" [First Look: New Generation 3D Projector Launch! Second Half's Hot AV Topic – 2011 Hong Kong High-End Audio-Visual Show]. PC Market [zh] (in Chinese). pp. G86 – G89.

      The review notes: "一年一度的《香港高級視聽展》上週閉幕，今年的視聽展人流也比往年多，開放到關門時間人流都保持著一定的水平，現場內也顯得十分熱鬧，同時今年在場內開始見到一些非影音玩家，反而是一些一般大眾；同時今年內展示的新產品亦包羅有半年，率先向下圖！"

      From Google Translate: "The annual "Hong Kong Advanced Audiovisual Exhibition" closed last week. This year's audiovisual exhibition had more visitors than in previous years. The flow of people remained at a certain level from opening to closing time, and the scene was very lively. At the same time, this year, some non-audio and video players began to be seen in the venue, but rather some general public; at the same time, the new products displayed this year also covered half a year, first shown in the picture below!"

    2. "漸見平民化 2010香港高級視聽展" [Gradually Becoming More Mainstream: 2010 Hong Kong High-End Audio-Visual Show]. PC Market [zh] (in Chinese). 2010-08-10. p. M16–M17.

      The review notes: "每年一度的影音界盛事《香港高級視聽展》今年依舊於灣仔會展舉行，為期三日的《2010香港高級視聽展》可謂天公做美，並沒有出現往年橫風橫雨的惡劣天氣，而且今年基於3D畫面技術的崛起，所以在會場中都明顯比家用音樂還見到了一些新品牌也看到了一些新唱片。"

      From Google Translate: "The annual audio-visual industry event, the "Hong Kong Advanced Audiovisual Show", was held again this year at the Wan Chai Convention and Exhibition Centre. The three-day "2010 Hong Kong Advanced Audiovisual Show" was blessed by good weather, without the severe wind and rain of previous years. In addition, due to the rise of 3D image technology this year, there were obviously more new brands and new records seen in the venue than at home music venues."

    3. Lau, Miu-yin 劉妙賢 (2010-07-27). "香港高級視聽展" [Hong Kong High-end Audiovisual Exhibition]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). p. P40.

      The article notes: "音響發燒友視8月初舉行的「香港高級視聽展」為影音界盛事，皆因他們對音色吹毛求疵的追求能在展會上得到滿足。展會除了架設二十二間「發燒房」之外，仍有十個特大展區、音樂軟體區、平面螢幕電視區，以及音響器材、線材及附件區，可謂雲集了世界頂級影音電子器材。現場除了可見價值連城的音響器材示範、恍如藝術品一般的黑膠播放系統、比電影院更豪華的全高清藍光家庭影院系統之外，還有最高質素香港高清數碼廣播示範，而展覽期間每天都有著名歌手和樂迷見面。"

      From Google Translate: "Audiophiles regard the "Hong Kong Advanced Audiovisual Exhibition" held in early August as a major event in the audio-visual industry because their meticulous pursuit of sound quality can be satisfied at the exhibition. In addition to the 22 "audiophile rooms", the exhibition also has 10 extra-large exhibition areas, a music software area, a flat-screen TV area, and an audio equipment, cable and accessories area, which can be said to be a gathering of the world's top audio and video electronic equipment. In addition to demonstrations of priceless audio equipment, a vinyl playback system that looks like a work of art, and a full HD Blu-ray home theater system that is more luxurious than a movie theater, there is also a demonstration of the highest quality Hong Kong HD digital broadcasting. During the exhibition, famous singers will meet with music fans every day."

    4. "香港高級視聽展 親身體驗過百萬元音響" [Hong Kong High-End Audio-Visual Show: Personal Experience with Million-Dollar Audio Equipment]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2022-08-03. Archived from the original on 2025-04-22. Retrieved 2025-04-22.

      The article notes: "本地影音發燒友，每年最期待8月的來臨，事關一年一度的香港高級視聽展在這段期間舉行。展覽會上雲集全球各地高級視聽品牌產品，諸如坐地喇叭、黑膠唱盤、前後級擴音機、膽機石機、數碼解碼器、音響線材、投影機、高質素黑膠唱片及CD等，部分器材身價更過百萬元，最難能可貴是能夠近距離體驗最新視聽產品，發燒友怎可錯過？"

      From Google Translate: "Local audio and video enthusiasts look forward to the arrival of August every year because the annual Hong Kong Advanced Audiovisual Exhibition is held during this period. The exhibition gathers high-end audio-visual brand products from all over the world, such as floor-standing speakers, vinyl turntables, pre- and post-amplifiers, tube amplifiers, transistor amplifiers, digital decoders, audio cables, projectors, high-quality vinyl records and CDs, etc. Some of the equipment is worth more than one million dollars. The most valuable thing is that you can experience the latest audio-visual products up close. How can audiophiles miss it?"

    5. Chu, Yuet-ying 朱悅瀅 (2019-08-11). 展商：內地客劇減 "高級視聽展閉幕　展商：內地客劇減" [High-End AV Show Closes. Exhibitors: Sharp Drop in Mainland Visitors]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from 展商：內地客劇減 the original on 2025-04-22. Retrieved 2025-04-22.

      The article notes: "香港高級視聽展2019今日閉幕，多個展商表示，今年人流下跌兩至五成。"

      From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Advanced Audiovisual Exhibition 2019 closed today. Many exhibitors stated that the number of visitors this year has dropped by 20% to 50%."

    6. Chung, Sai-kit 鍾世傑 (2024-08-09). "AVShow直擊｜香港高級視聽展2024．耳機/播放器…9個必行攤位推薦" [AV Show Spotlight｜Hong Kong High-End Audio-Visual Show 2024: 9 Must-Visit Booths for Headphones & Players]. HK01 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-04-22. Retrieved 2025-04-22.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Hong Kong High End Audio & Visual Show (traditional Chinese: 香港高級視聽展; simplified Chinese: 香港高级视听展) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Qarqozak Bridge and Tishreen Dam

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

Per WP:REDUNDANTFORK, an article shouldn't cover the same topic. This article covers the same topic as the East Aleppo offensive (2024–2025) article, just with less quality.

For example, it has 15 citation needed and 4 non-primary source needed tags since 25 February, 7 out of 10 sources come from Telegram, which could violate WP:UGC or WP:SELFSOURCE, and all sources date back to December 2024, making it outdated in regards to info about the battle. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement about the proposed deletion. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Only has Kurdish sources and is best documented in East Aleppo offensive (2024-2025) Farcazo (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too this page is maden up by full of Kurdish claims, ı am the one the guys who edited East Aleppo offensive (2024-2025) and im saying that, you should delete this very same page.

Battle of St. Pölten

Battle of St. Pölten (edit | 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 "battle" appears to be mentioned in only one source, a 1902 text which describes a minor skirmish. The article's other sources cited make no mention of it, as far as I can tell. The article appears to misrepresent this skirmish as a major engagement and applies a name to it, the "Battle of St. Pölten," which the single original source does not. This incident seems to be neither notable nor supported by reliable sources. Carpolomew (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Animecon (Netherlands)

Animecon (Netherlands) (edit | 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)

Cannot find sources. All sources in article are Template:Third-party violations. Roasted (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ayrum

Battle of Ayrum (edit | 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)

Cites primarily one source ("The Republic of Armenia" by Richard Hovannisian) which does not characterize this military action as a battle. Propose redirect to Armeno-Georgian_War#Armenian_offensive which more closely matches Hovannisian. Armeno-Georgian War states:

"On 16 December the Armenian left flank, commanded by Ter-Nikoghosian, now advanced from Lori into Georgia proper on Bolnis-Khachen and Katharinenfeld, while Korolov's right flank captured Hairum. Georgian forces, that consisted mostly of People's Guard units, offered poor resistance at Katharinenfeld and later at Shulaver, which put others forces in danger. The surprise attack at Hairum cost the Georgians an additional 500 men killed, wounded, or taken prisoner. "

A redirect would also deal with the edit warring over the infobox results. Annwfwn (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thuwaini Al-Saadoun campaign (1797)

Thuwaini Al-Saadoun campaign (1797) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and is probably a hoax. No citations are given here except for a list of sources totalling 3 pages, none of them attributed to any of the text and searching for sources on Google shows nothing but this Wikipedia article and mirrors of it 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Tourism Day (India)

National Tourism Day (India) (edit | 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)

Yet another made-up marketing observance. The only sources here are low-quality SEO-driven churnalism, most of it in unbylined WP:NEWSORGINDIA articles. My WP:BEFORE search found more of the same, plus a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE from India's tourism ministry that appears to be the basis of many of the spam articles on this observance. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties

International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties (edit | 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)

Found only blogs and party bulletins/press releases, no results on Scholar. Cannot find any SIGCOV in reliable sources. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's interesting seeing the exact same two/three users advocating for the same point in the last four deletion discussions, on the discussions for Initiative of Communist and Workers' Parties, World Anti-Imperialist Platform, European Communist Action, International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties. Castroonthemoon (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also this: International Communist League (Maoist). TurboSuperA+(connect) 07:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Especially interesting given that the nominating user was warned for mass deletion no less than a week ago Castroonthemoon (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’ll have to spell this theory out for us. Use your words: ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete How is lack of sources WP:IDONTLIKEIT? All sources in the article as far as I can tell are press releases or the organizing group's own webpage. Nothing else found, although the nondescrpit name makes searching difficult. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my delete to keep per the sources found by Goldsztajn, below. Everything else in my comment remains valid; the refbombing with non-independent sources has to go. Also, TurboSuperA+, your casting of aspersions is not appreciated. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources of this article mostly consist of press releases from the IMCWP's website about its meetings. Other sources are either publications from communist parties and movements or Facebook/twitter posts, neither of which are reliable and independent sources. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep There's absolutely no valid reason to delete this article. I'm suspecting that there's some sockpuppeting going on. Castroonthemoon (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Castroonthemoon Socking by whom? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Fresh blackcurrant because they mentioned IMCWP in another AfD the day before. TurboSuperA+(connect) 01:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, this is obviously notable. The OP needs to read the WP:BIASED section. Just because the topic is covered by ideological sources it does not mean they do not establish the notability of this organization and its existence. Fresh blackcurrant (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My rationale is not that the sources are biased; it’s that they are not reliable. They are mostly press releases and party bulletins. What are the three best sources to establish this topic’s notability? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of sources here. TurboSuperA+(connect) 05:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that's your criteria, NOT Wikipedia's. Castroonthemoon (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What’s my criteria? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is notable, more then enough notable. 109.245.35.214 (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – Coverage by mainstream sources generally considered reliable on the English Wikipedia will be weak given the topic, but I am aware of coverage by state media belonging to communist governments, such as those of China and Vietnam. A political international or conference is not notable simply because it has notable members or attendees, but this topic specifically receives attention from state actors. Yue🌙 00:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Chugach Mountains avalanche

2025 Chugach Mountains avalanche (edit | 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:NEVENT due to a lack of WP:LASTING coverage. This March 12 article is the coverage furthest removed from the event I could find: [4]. ~ A412 talk! 04:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Bloomington, Illinois, mayoral election

2025 Bloomington, Illinois, mayoral election (edit | 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 2025 Bloomington, Illinois, mayoral election was a run of the mill election in a mid-sized city. For context, Bloomington is 13th in population in Illinois and 5th outside of the Chicago metro. The election received coverage in the Bloomington-Normal media market (as expected) and owing to both political nerdiness and the presence of a former longtime state legislator in the race (Dan Brady), coverage from Illinois-centric politics publications most of which would be seen as blogs. As such, I do not see this election passing a test of historic significance and the appropriate course of action is to delete the article. Please see AfD: 2025 Alton mayoral election, and AfD: 2025 Aurora mayoral election as precedents and other thoughts. Mpen320 (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of Rabban Hormuzd

Massacre of Rabban Hormuzd (edit | 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)

Lacks notability and contains original research. The article cites one source and most of this relevant text in the source is in the quote (see page 102). Probably the same event is already covered in the fourth paragraph of Rabban_Hormizd_Monastery#History_of_the_monastery Annwfwn (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect skarz (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics at the 1998 Commonwealth Games – Men's javelin throw

Athletics at the 1998 Commonwealth Games – Men's javelin throw (edit | 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 javelin throw event, i was unable to find any sources about it. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Lists that are unsourced, single-sourced, or single primary sourced, existing as an exception to WP:NLIST which states, Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists.. This sort of mirrors Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists.
Review: Any exception[s], if actually allowed by consensus (depending on the list), need to be one of three, for Information, navigation, or Development. I am not sure an unsourced or poorly sourced break-away list containing the names of living people qualifies. Consideration, of course, has to be the membership criteria.
While attempting to validate a list, policies and guidelines should probably at least be considered. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists includes, "Citing sources": Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources.
Some editors may attempt to down-play the Notability guideline. The opening sentence states, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." The actual opening paragraph states, Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice".
Wikipedia gauges notability and being "worthy of notice" by verifiability: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. Additionally, four types of information must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Please note #2 and #3:
The note on numbers 2 and 3 is because any assumption of inherited or inherent notability is a fallacy. Alright, that's not the note, but true. Anyway, an article, or list, that remains published, either by silence on the subject, or even IAR, is subject to consensus and the fact that consensus can change.
The mention that other stuff exists is usually not a good thing to bring up at AFD. A good discussion for an exemption would be "valid splits from the main page (which would otherwise become way too long)." If a supposed parent article is not sourced or barely sourced, I am not open to considering a "valid split". I have ran across several of these. Articles like List of European Athletics Championships records has sources and also have many "splits" listed as details, which might be a consideration. There should be a link to the "main" article. Articles like European Running Championships with two sources counted as one and likely not advancing notability would not be a good candidate for consideration..
Summation: To claim exemption from notability or verifiability requires silence from other editors, IAR, that is dependent on consensus, and must consider the fact that consensus can change. Any silence ends when there is a challenge, so "likely to exist" becomes moot, and is satisfied by proof in the form of references, specifically inline citations. It would be better to supply a reference and the link to the main article to keep some editor from going on a crusade. It would be sad if the "history of the Commonwealth Games" were upset. -- Otr500 (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this AI? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (AFD Patrol). I would recommend the addition of at least one reliable source to the article per WP:V. The present one is insecure.
Otr500, you need to abide by due process at AfD by providing a concise rationale that may include links to guidelines. I doubt if anyone will make time to read your input here, and the reaction by BeanieFan11 is understandable. Spartathenian (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added the above sources to the article, thanks. --Habst (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Habst. Spartathenian (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chola Invasion of Anjuvannam

Chola Invasion of Anjuvannam (edit | 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 event described—the Chola "invasion" of Anjuvannam—appears to be fictitious. It lacks reliable scholarly sources. Some of the cited sources fail verification, as they do not support the statements made. There is also a possible misrepresentation of sources. Anjuvannam was a south Indian merchant guild, not a political entity, making the described "invasion" historically implausible.

The article's creator seems to have been confused by reading the books and some of the events described in them, such as the granting of the Jewish copper plates c. 1000 AD [and the 72 privileges conferred by the ruler of Cranganore]. It also appears that the creator confused these events with the 11th-century Chola attacks on Kerala, which he/she strangely dated to 1165 AD.

The cited source mentioning this "invasion" is a quote from a layperson interview (Elias Josephai), with no corroboration in academic or peer-reviewed literature. JamesMdp (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah drone smuggling investigation (2024–2025)

Hezbollah drone smuggling investigation (2024–2025) (edit | 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, lack of significant coverage for WP:GNG, does not seem to have enduring significance WP:EVENTCRIT – we don't have articles for every international policing operation and the "European network" is alleged and unnamed. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Uruli

Battle of Uruli (edit | 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)

Sardesai, Govind Sakharam (1946) dedicated 2-3 (I'm overestimating here) lines to the actual conflict, Subrahmanian, N. (1979) mentions this conflict in passing (not by the name it is named as), same thing with Mehta, Jaswant Lal (2005), the only academic tertiary source covering the Marathas , Gordon Stewart (2005) does not even mention this battle, although it is cited here. This article completely fails notability guidelines, there is no significant coverage for the battle and even the cited sources don't call it what the author has named this article. Ratnahastin (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are incorrect, the source only has a few lines for the actual conflict itself, most of what you are considering as coverage is in fact about the background and events that happened after it. Your source is also too old to be used and all the relevant detail about the conflict is just this:

On 8th December Nizam Ali occupied Chas, 20 miles north of Poona and pushed on to Uruli less than one day’s march from that capital. Here his advance was halted. His devastation of the places of sanctity had already estranged his Maratha subordinates and sedition was being successfully employed in his ranks. Ramchandra Jadhav and Mir Mughal, Nizam Ali’s brother, deserted him and came over to the Peshwa. This defection in his forces created a serious situation for Nizam Ali, who came to be practically surrounded at Uruli and was compelled to beg for terms to secure his retreat.

Can you provide the full page? From the snippet it says: "Urali, Battle of 140". Ratnahastin (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is what actual "battle" coverage looks like:
he marched directly upon Poona at the head of a powerful army of sixty thousand men, with a determined intention to capture the nerve-centre of the Maratha power and to prostrate it permanently. Fire and desolation marked the trail of Nizam Ali’s invading forces. By destroying Toka and Pravara-Sangam, two great centres of Hindu religious sanctity, in November, he added fierce fanaticism to his political aims. He dug up Sindia’s palaces at Shrigonda for obtaining hidden treasure. The menace so quickly approached Poona, that it then created a scare, in consequence of which the Peshwa’s family and some of the general populace removed themselves for safety to Lohgad, Purandar, Sinhagad and other places.
At this trying moment Madhavrao and his uncle sent urgent calls to Janoji Bhosle and other Sardars to join the Peshwa’s standard,
so that a force of about seventy thousand was assembled by the end of October. With this army they at once moved to oppose the enemy and bring him to submission. Avoiding a general action, they harassed the progress of the enemy at every turn, and wore down his spirit in several skirmishes which took place at Ahmadnagar, Shrigonda, Hivre and Bhuleshvar on the enemy’s route towards Poona. On 8th December Nizam Ali occupied Chas, 20 miles north of Poona and pushed on to Uruli less than one day’s march from that capital. Here his advance was halted. His devastation of the places of sanctity had already estranged his Maratha subordinates and sedition was being successfully employed in his ranks. Ramchandra Jadhav and Mir Mughal, Nizam Ali’s brother, deserted him and came over to the Peshwa. This defection in his forces created a serious situation for Nizam Ali, who came to be practically surrounded at Uruli and was compelled to beg for terms to secure his retreat.
I'm not even quoting the aftermath or prelude of the battle. It's just you conveniently left out other parts. Subrahmanian's citation was for your "sources don't call it what the author has named this article" question, it surely doesn't have more than half a page of coverage. Although the gap is filled by Sardesai. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's break down the so-called "significant coverage", it seems you didn't even read the quote you have pasted here:
  • November, Nizam destroys Toka and Pravara-Sangam.
  • October, Large forces assembled by Marathas.
  • December, Nizam occupies Chas.
  • December-January, Nizam's further conquests are halted at Uruli(the actual conflict begins)
  • January, Nizam is surrounded and his men defect.
The real conflict only begins at Uruli in January, you have simply cited the conflict preceding here in this quote, the way Sardesai is discussing the conflict, it is obvious that he is treating this battle as a part of the broader conflict between Marathas and the Nizam, there is therefore no significant coverage about the battle in the sources, it is irrelevant what Subramanian calls it ( he doesn't even call it what the it is titled as), if he doesn't cover the battle. The quote i posted earlier is all there is. Taking an excerpt out of an outdated work and spinning it off into an article is completely unwarranted, this page should not have been created in the first place. Ratnahastin (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 01:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sangrana

AfDs for this article:
Battle of Sangrana (edit | 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 Great Gurus of the Sikhs: Guru Tegh Bahadur & Govind Singh" does not mention this battle at all. Hari Ram Gupta (1984) dedicates 7 lines to this battle[6]. Madra, Amandeep Singh; Singh, P. (2016) mentions in footnotes that the first conflict between Sikhs and Mughals was fought in 1628 and provides no further details[7]. Daljeet Singh, Kharak Singh (1997) does not mention this battle. Gandhi, Surjit Singh (1978) covers the Battle of Amritsar (1634) and not the Battle of Sangrama fought in 1628. This article is perhaps conflating the two because all other sources are covering the second battle which we already have an article on, from the reading of the sources it seems the incident at Sangrana in 1628 (I doubt there was even a battle in 1628) served as a background/provocation to the Battle of Amritsar (1634), therefore I think it can be covered over there. Ratnahastin (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sarangpur

Battle of Sarangpur (edit | 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 "battle" article with only two lines of knowhow around the event: The two armies met in A.D. 1437 and after a severe engagement, the Sultan's army was utterly routed. It shouldn't have been in the mainspace to begin with. Shakakarta (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The article includes adequate background, details, and aftermath section. It's also well-referenced. It shouldn't be deleted. Czar-peter-123 (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- The battle is a significant event in medival Indian history as it started the the full scale war between two most powerful polities of that time. Aside of that it has significant coverage too in history books. The only think that it lacks is coverage on Wikipedia which I will be doing by tomorrow evening. Rawn3012 (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No source gives a detailed description of this 'Battle of Sarangpur'. Heraklios 14:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Clearly WP:NOTABLE historical event with multiple reliable sources. Even if anything is imperfect, we can still WP:PRESERVE it.Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 10:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Avoid WP:CRYSTALBALL argument. The page was standing for years but there was no improvement because there's nothing we can do to savour it. Some three lines of coverage don't help it to pass WP:GNG. Heraklios 14:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per the nomination. Sources cited give a brief amount of coverage, not more than a small paragraph, the crux of the battle should be over a page. Also why's there flag of Delhi Sultanate used for Malwa Sultanate? Heraklios 14:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes WP:GNG, SIGCOV exists in the sources (Mankekar, D. r (1976) U.N Day (1978) Hooja, Rima (2006)) this is a chain of nominations made within minutes of one another and complete falls afoul of WP:BEFORE. CharlesWain (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Baseless aspersions. The sources you have given don't go beyond a few lines of passing mentions:
    • Day: Passing mentions, even the author de-legitimated it with "So called" prefix.
    • Hooja: "The armies of Mewar and Malwa clashed at Sarangpur in 1437. The latter army was conclusively routed here." - That's it.
    • [8]: Not accessible, no sign of coverage either.
    • Mankekar: "The engagement that followed saw Mohmad Khilji routed" - That's it.
    Har Bilas is an unreliable source, now prove me wrong by citing a source covering the battle for at least 2 paragraphs. Shakakarta (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    how is har bilas unreliable source? Aryanisking (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : @Shakakarta, @Heraklios and @Rawn3012 This is one of the most important battles of 15th century in northern India. The sultan himself being captured by Kumbha forces—an event that highlights the importance of this article. Many notable (WP:RS) sources cover this event. Though there is scope for improvement of article by addition of information from reliable sources, there is no such need for deletion. Check these sources, they cover the battle in more detail; [9] and [10] though preview is limited. You could use Sarangpur/1437/etc. in search option to look for this battle. I had offline copies in library but School is closed due to summer vacations. Someone can improve the article based on the info available in the books if they have it online. I have already asked Rawn for it as he often edit articles related to history of Mewar. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the debate over the sources, perhaps a source assessment table is in order, or some input from some of our seasoned AfD participants and source analysts.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties of the 2011 Super Outbreak

Casualties of the 2011 Super Outbreak (edit | 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)

While the outbreak is very notable, this article was initially denied at AfC based on WP:NOTMEMORIAL and was later published into the mainspace anyway. The article contains several errors (such as stating the Hackleburg tornado killed 72 people but only listing 70), and the table at the top does not add up to the correct number of people killed on the correct dates. The top table also does not seem to jive with the list of fatalities below it in regards to the date. The table also lists numerous Jane and John Doe's, implying that those people are unknown. In fact, those people are known, but likely do not have names published online in an easily found place. I believe an alternative to outright deletion could be to condense this into a section at 2011 Super Outbreak or to break the names (provided the information is correct) into separate tables in their respective tornado's section at 2011 Super Outbreak. United States Man (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Copake Mitsubishi MU-2 crash

2025 Copake Mitsubishi MU-2 crash (edit | 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)

Available information suggests this is a WP:ROTM general aviation accident stemming from tragically common circumstances (an amateur pilot performing a instrument landing system approach close to minimums in a fast airplane), and as such, it fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT, in particular WP:EVENTCRIT #4. It is possible that WP:LASTING effects or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE will justify a standalone article, but at this point, I think that the article was created WP:TOOSOON. I suggest that it be merged with The accident can be adequately summarized in a paragraph at Columbia County Airport, the intended destination of the flight.

Full disclosure: I previously proposed a merge with Westchester County Airport by mistake, and I had that proposal closed administratively so I could propose the correct target. Carguychris (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube views alone do not establish notability. Carguychris (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know but it is going viral. I'm not saying that it should make the article stay but it is something to note. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified the language to better reflect my intent. I did not mean to imply a full blown page merge. Carguychris (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Columbia per Carguychris' bottom argument. Borgenland (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•Merge please note that Karenna Groff, 2022 NCAA Woman of The Year was on board this plane. Create article on Karenna Groff and merge the accident into her death.Article mentioning Groff here lolzer3k (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025 Daraa clashes

March 2025 Daraa clashes (edit | 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)

Insignificant clashes article which gives little to no information to the readers. WP:NOTNEWS. Can be merged to Western Syria clashes (December 2024–present). Ecrusized (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support since the article's small (the timeline only has 3 small sentences), but idk if it should merged into the Western Syria Clashes article because that's specifically about Latakia/Tartus and western Homs/Hama (though it could just be renamed to something like Assadist insurgency).
I was gonna propose making a Mohsen al-Haymed article, but he's only been reported on in 3 separate months - April 2024, January 2025, and March 2025, which might not be enough coverage for a separate article.

(If this article isn't deleted, it should be renamed to something like 2025 al-Sanamayn Clashes or al-Sanamayn Clashes (2024-2025)) Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merging the info to Western Syria clashes (December 2024–present) wouldn't make sense, as Daraa is in southern Syria. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Low level of Oppostition It should remain in place until the Western Syria clashes (December 2024-present) page issue is resolved Because only the title applies to the Western Syria Farcazo (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The scope of this article fits better within Western Syria clashes (December 2024-present), yet obviously these clashes did not take place in western Syria. Building off of this, there's significant discussion on the name of the article, and at the current moment it seems that the general consensus leans towards changing the title to a more inclusive name, but disagreement exists on what to change the name too. It might be a good idea to extend this AFD discussion until ongoing discussion on the other article is resolved. Castroonthemoon (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Diban clashes

2025 Diban clashes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. Insignificant clashes article, which doesn't have content that can be expanded. Can be merged to Rojava–Islamist conflict. Ecrusized (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support since this article looks to just be about a rather small skirmish between some tribal gunmen and the SDF, but I think its info should be merged into the Eastern Syria Insurgency article instead; the article on them doesn't mention them as being explicitly Islamist, and they're already in the article's infobox. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For me it should be linked with Deir ez-Zor clashes (2023) because they were not only in 2023 but also in 2024 because Eastern Syria Insurgency is only for rebels, ISIS and Baathist remnants against the Syrian democratic forces. 2800:200:F4D0:97B:EC4D:94C4:86A5:E42B (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that the 2023 Deir ez-Zor clashes looks like it's about a specific wave of clashes against the SDF in August and September 2023, so idk if the Diban Clashes' info should be moved there. However, you are right in that the Eastern Syria Insurgency article doesn't focus on the tribal militia. Maybe there could be a new article created specifically about tribal militias attacking the SDF (e.g. Tribal Insurgency in Eastern Syria), and the Diban Clashes' info could be merged there? Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, better, because there are many waves of attacks from the Tribal forces and an article where they are all combined is good. Farcazo (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Create a Draft (Draft:Arab Tribal insurgency in Eastern Syria) if you want you can help move things from here to there and add Farcazo (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Farcazo's idea of making an article for Arab tribes attacking the SDF in eastern Syria would be a suitable decision, and the info from this article could just be moved there. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prime ministerial candidacy of Narendra Modi

Nomination: How a party decided their prime ministerial candidate is not notable and interesting topic at all. India has Parliamentary system in contrast to Presidential system. According to this logic, Prime Minister should be decided only after the election. This article doesn't demand a separate article. This article doesn't seem notable at all and may be formed due to ideological biasness. This article should either be deleted or be merged to Narendra Modi. XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The majority of the info is simply repeated in Narendra Modi section titled Premiership campaigns. His campaigns on there own were not unique and only hold significance because he is the prime minister of India.
The event doesn't hold noteriaty outside of him so it should be found in Narendra Modi article (which a version already exists).
RCSCott91 (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mysore–Travancore war

Mysore–Travancore war (edit | 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 article is built upon clear original synthesis. No historian presents a War where one sided Mysore, Kingdom of France, the Marathas, and the Dutch where the opponents as Travancore supported by East India company and Kochin. What even surprises is as of mentioned here, the victory didn't favour to the Mysore where they both conflicted at Battle of Nedumkotta. Contents could be merged to the Mysorean invasion of Malabar by extending the scope of that article by replacing Malabar by Kerala and removing the result section. This article is clear synthesis of the author. Hionsa (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Raigarh (1689)

Battle of Raigarh (1689) (edit | 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 failed redirect, later contested by the author of the article. My reasoning is- why doesn't this have coverage around the battle itself? There's no need for aftermath without a substantial coverage of "Battle". Shakakarta (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on the merge to Deccan Wars suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Gwalior Khasgi Bazar, Kala Gopal Apartment fire

2025 Gwalior Khasgi Bazar, Kala Gopal Apartment fire (edit | 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)

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Incident isn't notable enough for a standalone article. CycloneYoris talk! 08:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a notable incident that was widely covered in reliable sources like Dainik Bhaskar, Times Of India, ANI etc . It has received media attention and public support, including statements from elected officials. It meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for events and deserves to be retained. Michael Fernandes2007 (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a notable incident that was widely covered in reliable sources like Dainik Bhaskar, Times Of India, ANI etc . It has received media attention and public support, including statements from elected officials. It meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for events and deserves to be retained. Michael Fernandes2007 (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The article meets the notability criteria under WP:EVENT and WP:NOTE. The Gwalior Khasgi Bazar, Kala Gopal Apartment fire has been covered in-depth by multiple reliable, independent sources, including national and regional media (Assam Tribune, Daijiworld, Wikipedia-cited articles) which reported not only the fire but also the legal aftermath, public safety discussions, and community impact which makes it suitable for WP:RS

This is not a routine local incident — the scale of the event, the involvement of illegally stored hazardous materials, the injury of emergency personnel, and the legal and civic consequences demonstrate lasting notability. The article is verifiable per WP:V and written in a neutral tone in line with WP:NPOV.

Arguments about the article being "recent" WP:RECENT or local WP:LOCAL do not apply here, as the coverage goes well beyond routine reporting and the issues raised are of broader social concern in India.

Unless substantial evidence is presented that this is not a notable event, the article should be retained.

Thanks VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:EVENTCRIT: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. No enduring significance to be seen here. "Government officials are reviewing permit records and considering stricter enforcement of building codes" - so nothing has actually happened yet as a result. Astaire (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deete A very sad story, but this is routine news coverage of a local fire with a standard response at this point (with the authorities 'shocked' at what happened even though they approved it and then 'cleaning' up the mess; sadly, the standard script for 'Indian workplace in a place it was never approved to be in' fires) with standard reporting in national sources. And Michael, if you respond to this vote, please do it in your own words and not with a copied macro shortcut to the same script. Nathannah • 📮 20:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, per WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:NOTNEWS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as textbook WP:NOTNEWS per WP:ROUTINE. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lalitpur Mayor Women's Cup

Lalitpur Mayor Women's Cup (edit | 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)

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources other than ROUTINE coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV, thus fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 12:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - per above. With the sources above mentioned, it indicate that there is coverage available about the subject. I'm leaning towards feeling that the article needs citations, not the subject.
WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Neha Hiremath

Murder of Neha Hiremath (edit | 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 NEVENT, not enough sustained or in depth coverage to prove notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast India International Travel Mart

AfDs for this article:
Northeast India International Travel Mart (edit | 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)

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

Northeast India International Tourism Mart: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Kudos to AllyD for fixing the broken AfD link.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahluwalia–Ramgarhia War

Ahluwalia–Ramgarhia War (edit | 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)

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

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

  • Delete - The coverage in the sources is not enough and none of the sources support this neologism made up by the author "Ahluwalia - Ramgarhia war" , in fact sources do not even support that this was a war, sources at best refer to it as skirmishes and do not provide significant coverage to them. Anyway given the author's history of making copyvio, I doubt this article is free of it. The relevant details (not closely paraphrased) can be covered at the articles of relevant personalities. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Input from editors familiar with milhist but who do not normally edit in this topic area would be hugely welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I can't find the article title in those sources which I can see but, worse, a quick check shows that there are copyright issues. For example, the last paragraph is far too close a paraphrase of the cited source. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sitush is correct, there are serious close paraphrasing issues in the article, combine that with dubious notability and the obviously made up title, are sufficient grounds for deletion. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pathankot Campaign

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

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

  • Keep; there seems to be some significant and reliable coverage from scholars, historians, etc. The article looks a little biased, and there are some strong words like "enraged", but a rewrite can fix that - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 20:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You will have to cite the sources you believe have provided enough coverage. I don't see any scholarly sources that have. NXcrypto Message 07:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An unbiased source analysis would be far more useful than accusations of "revenge" or AI use.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Tapuah Junction shooting

2021 Tapuah Junction shooting (edit | 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 secondary coverage. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thebiguglyalien hello, im not familiar with the English Wikipedia article deletion policy, so i would be happy if you would be able to explain to me why 2013 Tapuah Junction stabbing, and 2010 Tapuah Junction stabbing considered notable enough for an article, and this article isn't. There an important detail that i didn't mention in the article cause i didn't found source in English for this particular claim but there a lot of Hebrew sources. This detail is the fact that the settlement of Evyatar was re-establish be Israeli settlers as "response" for this attack.Benbaruch (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone would have to look at those articles, but it's possible they aren't notable either. Articles about events on the English Wikipedia require sustained coverage beyond the initial reporting of the event. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Thebiguglyalien, i understand, but what do think about the fact that a large output that currently being regulated by the Israeli government, was re-establish as "response" for this attack, don't you think that this fact makes the article about the attack notable enough? Benbaruch (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Keep There was the attack. Following that there was a manhunt which got coverage including his wife being arrested. He had a trial which got additional coverage. Then Israel military demolished his family home, which got coverage including the US State Department condemning it (a rare event).
The article needs work and additional sources, but I do think this incident and it's aftermath got sustained notice both within Israel but also around the globe. Searching using the name of the perpetrator is a good place to start for additional sources[31] -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Under scholarly sources, I found one book which doesn't just have a description of the attack but also discuss clashes and violence in response to Israel engaging in the manhunt[32] Bob drobbs (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm updating my vote to Strong Keep after reviewing the number of sources which covered this attack and it's aftermath.
And while WP:OTHER isn't usually the strongest argument, in this case if we start applying a not-policy definition of secondary source which some here are trying to use to justify the deletion of even articles where hundreds of news articles were written about an event over a period of years, then much of this site would have to be deleted. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd consider merge or redirect to an appropriate page, which is the level of treatment that this gets in the book above. To meet GNG, a subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. The newspaper coverage is primary, as is the state department rebuke. The book, Jewish Lives Matter has only a short entry that does not significantly describe the attack such that a wikipedia page can be written. The nature of the work shows why multiple sources are required. We are certainly not at a WP:N pass yet, and if we are to rely on this kind of sourcing to keep an article then systematic bias in our coverage is likely. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    > The newspaper coverage is primary...
    I'm not sure this understanding of secondary sources is correct.  Reading through it again, a newspaper journalist synthesizing facts regarding an incident seems sufficient to qualify as secondary:
    "A Secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources"
    Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources
    In which case, this incident got plenty of secondary source coverage over an extended period of time.
    -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment is meta. Which sources do you contest are secondary, and why? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, based on policy it seems that all that's required to be a secondary source is for someone at least one step removed from the event synthesizing facts about it. And for this story, there are dozens (if not hundreds) of examples over a period of years. Here are just a few of them:
In this Haaretz article about the conviction the journalist synthesized a bunch of related facts regarding this case.
https://archive.is/CzIV8
Here's an article which focuses on the demolition of his family's home, but also meets the metric of synthesizing facts:
https://www.euronews.com/2021/07/08/us-israel-palestinians-violence
Here's another one which condemns Rashida Tlaib for tweeting about the house demolition.
https://www.algemeiner.com/2021/07/11/antisemitic-congresswoman-rashida-tlaib-slammed-on-twitter-for-denouncing-demolition-of-palestinian-terrorists-home-failing-to-mention-his-victim/
The US embassy issuing a condemnation is a primary source. Tlaib tweeting about it is a primary source. But if any journalist writes about these things then that's a secondary source. Bob drobbs (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Let's look at each of these:
  1. The Haaretz article is a news report about sentencing of Muntasir Shalabi. This is a primary source. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS or any good book on historiography. It is a discursive primary source, and it reports the background, that is, the shooting, saying Shalabi, a U.S. citizen, was convicted of shooting the three victims from inside his car while they were waiting at a bus stop at the Tapuah junction in the northern West Bank. and later According to his indictment Shalabi fired from close range and stopped shooting when his gun malfunctioned and fled the scene. That's not SIGCOV, but notice carefully that "According to his indictment". The news source is reporting court documents. This is a primary source for this detail also. News reporting is a primary source, and does not count towards notability, and that is Wikipedia policy. Red XN
  2. The Euronews article is a news report of the demolition of his house. Again, this is reporting events, and adds reported detail of the background of the events. This is a primary source. Again, refer to WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Red XN
  3. The algemeiner: This is a news report of criticism of the demolition of Shalabi's home. It contains only this background on the topic of the article: Of course what Hamas lobbyist @RashidaTlaib omits to mention is fact that this home belonged to a Palestinian terrorist who murdered a Jewish Israeli man. That is not SIGCOV, and is a quotation in response to the criticism. It, too, is primary sourcing. Note that what we don't have is a source that has synthesised material here. We don't have an article that has examined the whole matter, and draw together reporting, and chosen to include this criticism, and examined its effects. Instead we have a news report that we have decided to include in the article. The synthesis is ours. Again, this is a discursive primary source, and does not count towards notability. Red XN
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're looking at Wikipedia:PRIMARYNEWS as the best or only place to determine what a secondary source. Above you rejected my argument as "meta", but have you looked at Wikipedia:SECONDARY which defines what a secondary source is.
It only requires a few things:
  • At least one step removed from an event
  • Contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas
And here's my understanding of the word "synthesis" in this context:
  • Combining information from multiple sources to create a new, cohesive understanding or argument
Do you have a different understanding of the word?
And is there any disagreement with the idea that the Haaretz journalist probably talked to multiple people and maybe reviewed multiple documents to put together their news report? Bob drobbs (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PRIMARYNEWS links you to the policy page. Now look on WP:SECONDARY, scroll up a couple of paragraphs, and read note d under WP:PRIMARY. These are primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Restricting participation to EC editors per WP:PIA.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I noticed another editor saying that wikipedia is not news, and though that is true, that is not what this is about. A review of the sources in both English as well as Hebrew demonstrates clear notability per WP:GNG for this article to be kept. The article also references an event from 2021. This was and is a notable event that meets our standards for encyclopedic mention. Keep all around. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Bob Drobbs comments and further inquiry, my Strong Keep moves to Even stronger Keep. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi lijhgtn. You may only have one highlighted !vote per AfD. I am curious though: your !vote above was made at 15:26 yesterday, but you had !voted on a previous AfD just 2 minutes earlier, at 15:24. Did you do your WP:BEFORE review of the sourcing at some other time? Would you be willing to post up your source review? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I bolded text after the first and only !vote. Will it somehow count as a second one? If so, that was not my intention, I was simply bolding the second mention of "Strong Keep" and "Even Stronger Keep" for emphasis. I thought only your first bolded !vote was "counted" (and yes I know they are not simply votes and therefore it is not simply a matter of which "side" has the highest number of !votes on their side but rather which arguments are most based in policy. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, if I did something wrong, please ping me and let me know so that I come back to this thread and I will correct it. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for removing the additional bolding. It keeps things clearer for the closer. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This did not receive any – let alone significant! – secondary source coverage over time and warrants deletion for that reason. (WP:NOTNEWS / WP:SIGCOV) Already covered in Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2021, besides. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comments above. Can you please clarify what your understanding of a secondary source is?
    Because it appears that between coverage of this shooting and coverage of the perpetrator/aftermath dozens if not hundreds of secondary sources gave significant coverage to this story. And to clarify my use of the word "significant" these weren't just passing mentions, these were are all news articles written specifically about the incident or things directly related to it's aftermath (manhunt, trial, home demolition) which IMO should be included in the scope of this article.
    As just one example, of countless examples, here is a secondary source giving coverage of the attack:
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/student-shot-in-west-bank-drive-by-shooting-dies-of-injuries/ Bob drobbs (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Times of Israel article is a news report of the death of Yehuda Guetta. The article is news reporting throughout. As above, refer to WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Such reports are primary sources occasioned by the event (this one is occasioned by the death of the victim). These are not secondary sources demonstrating notability nor WP:LASTING effect. Red XN Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      IMO Wikipedia:Secondary source seems like a better, and probably the definitive place, to try to get an understanding of what a secondary source is. Bob drobbs (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, scroll up a couple of paragraphs on that page and carefully read note d regarding what are primary sources. Per policy, these are primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I did scroll up. it seems 100% clear that Times of Israel (and countless other sources) aren't a primary sources based on this definition:
      "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event..."
      But there's also this qualification:
      "For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources..."
      I wasn't sure, so I had to look up how wikipedia defines "breaking news":
      "Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia" Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Breaking_news
      So it seems very clear that the only standard here is to treat news stories within 24 hours of an event with a large degree of skepticism, not that every single news article written within 6-12 months of an event is a primary source. Bob drobbs (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This is just wikilawyering. Have another read of WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You keep referring to WP:PRIMARYNEWS, but that page is just an opinion essay written by some editors:
      "This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community'"'
      By comparison, WP:SECONDARY is policy. Bob drobbs (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It is an explanatory essay explaining Wikipedia policy, and which, like all explanatory essays, has a higher level of consensus than someone trying to assert that a news source is only primary if it is within 24 hours of an event. It also links quite clearly to the policy. News reports are primary sources. It is not just Wikipedia saying so.

      Discursive primary sources include other people’s accounts of what happened, such as reports of meetings, handbooks, guides, diaries, pamphlets, newspaper articles, sermons and literary and artistic sources.[3]: 69 .

      Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      At any rate, WP:SECONDARY is very clear: A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. The ToI article provided does none of these things. Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      News reports are primary sources
      Yes, some very academic-focused essays make this claim, but this is not wiki policy.
      There's literally a WP:In the news section featured at the top of the homepage which is written based on news reports. Bob drobbs (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Why does Wikipedia need to define what a secondary/primary source are? This is a real term and not something made up for the purpose of the project like WP:NOTABILITY. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It is wikipedia policy. See WP:PRIMARY and especially note d. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no secondary coverage, and yes news reports are primary sources: [33] Traumnovelle (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=TN4fEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=muhammad+pasha+of+rawanduz&ots=ytYHQzxNRC&sig=Of9BngItdJKqTuuwAfRChN0KBzM#v=onepage&q&f=false
  2. ^ https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=FCbspX-dGPYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=muhammad+pasha+of+rawanduz&ots=RpL4kQVs3I&sig=fLrFGCQRzkuMV-NwCoRQ2JDlJj8#v=onepage&q&f=false
  3. ^ Donnelly, Mark P.; Norton, Claire (2021). Doing history (2nd ed.). London New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 9781138301559.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't see a consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, isn't that when a "No consensus" close is appropriate? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion was started on March 27. Is it standard practice to just relist into eternity until a super majority is presented? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
up to 3 relists are quite common where consensus remains unclear. Note that Liz said this is the final relist. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caracalla's campaigns of 214–216

Caracalla's campaigns of 214–216 (edit | 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 not supported by the sources it caontains, even the most reliable source here, The Cambridge ancient history vol 12, mentions only one campaign, in 217.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions