Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Events

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Events|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Events. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Events

1820 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election

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

I fail to see how this election is notable enough to warrant its own page. Like anything, elections aren't automatically or inherently notable merely because they happened (WP:NRV). I can't find any coverage on the election besides that D-R candidate Ashley became Lt. Governor, and that's it. There isn't any information on how many votes he received or why the election was unopposed. Basically everything here can be found on Ashley's page and the Lieutenant Governor of Missouri page. Also, the only source used in the article is OurCampaigns (marked as unreliable on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial_sources), which in my experience frequently provides incorrect information, including fabricating details and candidates. Wowzers122 (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Politics. Wowzers122 (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they suffer from the same problem. For example on how OurCampaings is a bad source see this version of the 1845 governor election in Virginia and this version of the 1848 governor election in Virginia where the article, using OurCampaigns, says the candidate won unopposed with a single person casting a ballot. When you look at those pages now, with reliable sources, you can see that's not the case.

Keep all. The nominator has clearly not followed WP:BEFORE; or if they did not competently. In less than two minutes I found this on the 1820 election: [1] which shows that 1. It was not an uncontested election 2. There were three candidates on the ballot, one of whom (Nathaniel Cook) had a vote count just slightly lower then William H. Ashley. It was a close election. The current article is just wrong and full of factual errors. A major office at the state level falls under WP:NPOL and reasonably elections for politicians who meet WP:NPOL are all notable/encyclopedic because that office is deemed encyclopedic. Also this should be a procedural close because WP:SIGCOV on these elections is going to be different for each one, and this a procedurally a bad bundled nomination that would be overturned easily at WP:DELETIONREVIEW for bad process. 4meter4 (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation of Lazistan Sanjak

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

As some ISBN numbers seem to be invalid I am not sure this is notable enough to be a separate article. No objection to merging into Lazistan Sanjak or elsewhere as an alternative to deletion Chidgk1 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with all the other spurious creations by this editor. Unverifiable is about the politest thing you can say about it. Mccapra (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Değirmendere

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

No page numbers despite my request. So even if someone has the books cited it would be hard to check.

There is a mention of a place with that name in https://ttk.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/10-Mevlut-Ing.pdf but no mention of a battle Chidgk1 (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I am unable to find sources in Turkish. The creator has a record of creating battle-related article with unverifiable sourcing which get deleted at AfD. Mccapra (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Trabzon (1834)

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

Trabzon is a city so there ought to be more sources for such a relatively recent event Chidgk1 (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more battlebollox from a user with a record of creating articles full of unverifiable content. Mccapra (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly a hoax. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination rationale. Mekomo (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, It only refers to the Laz Rebellion, no result on Google Scholar -

𓆩♡𓆪𝘚𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘢𓆩♡𓆪 ・︶꒦꒷ 💬・✏️ ꒷꒦︶ 03:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Trabzon

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

Cannot find anything in Google Scholar and hard to tell if the linked source is enough to justify the article Chidgk1 (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bryer seems to be reputable but I am not an academic so I don’t know whether that sourcing is enough. Bryer was writing in the 1960s but a lot of the stuff which was unpublished in his day should now be available by searching for "Trebizond" at https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_q=Trebizond&_sd=&_ed=&_hb= so has anyone studied and published a more modern work based on the primary sources? Also the Ottoman archives are available as far as I know, so should not they be cited in some more modern secondary source? And why does the article not exist in Turkish Wikipedia? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aha at the end of page 202 Bryer says “the attack on Trebizond never materialised” Chidgk1 (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lazistan campaign

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

Although the journal exists I cannot find the journal article

https://osmanliarastirmalari.isam.org.tr/dergi/search/index?query=Rebellion+and+Resistance+in+Ottoman+Anatolia&dateFromYear=&dateFromMonth=&dateFromDay=&dateToYear=&dateToMonth=&dateToDay=&authors=

Skudaslazuri - did you use an LLM? If so please could you explain how you used it - for example what was your prompt?

If anything is worth keeping from this article I have no objection to it being moved to Laz rebellion (1832–1834) Chidgk1 (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with all the other spurious creations by this editor. Unverifiable is about the politest thing you can say about it. Mccapra (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Elmalıca

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

Not enough reliable sources (Greek City Times is unreliable) Chidgk1 (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with all the other spurious creations by this editor. Unverifiable is about the politest thing you can say about it. Mccapra (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magazines + TV Screens Tour

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

WP:RUNOFTHEMILL tour that fails WP:NTOUR. G11 and BLAR has been tried before. Notability-tagged for 11 years. Geschichte (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, Ireland, Portugal, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, doesn't meet WP:GNG for an article in its own right and only has a passing mention on the Union J article, so don't think a redirect is necessary. Orange sticker (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brazil tornadoes in 2024

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

Fails WP:NLIST, WP:NOTDATABASE and is highly incomplete with no signs of any work being done. Would also support a merge into Tornadoes of 2024, as has been discussed. Since the merge request has been open for 13 days with almost zero responses, I'll start this. E_F⁵ 22:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Brazil. E_F⁵ 22:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Tornadoes of 2024, add into respective months. Procyon117 (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge – List should not exist. However, per WP:TornadoCriteria the tornado on March 21 meets the criteria to be included on the Tornadoes of 2024 article. So, merge the March 21 tornado into Tornadoes of 2024 and delete the rest. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conquests of Inal the Great

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

This article is an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK of Inal the Great. There is insufficient sourcing for Inal's conquests to warrant a standalone page. The sources are all passing mentions of Inal himself (here, here, here), don't even mention him or describe him as a legendary figure), with the one exception of a self-published Circassian nationalist blog. The article was created by a sockmaster and a redirect preferred by multiple editors is being repeatedly reverted by a likely WP:LOUTSOCK. I am seeking consensus for restoration of a stable redirect to Inal the Great. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Georgia (country). Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caspian Airlines Flight 6936

AfDs for this article:

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

Tag me in the below discussion so i can get my quickest reponse possible out to you.

Failure of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:NOTNEWS incident seems to have had a fairly short news cycle. Additionally no passenger or exterior fatalities and only a total loss of the plane. Lolzer3k 15:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Iran. Lolzer3k 15:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - per my comments at the 1st AfD discussion, a mere 2 months ago. A second AfD is not justified at this point in time. Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per criteria 4 of WP:EVENTCRIT. Oppose a speedy close. This was a minor accident with zero fatalities and only two people with minor injuries. There is nothing encyclopedic about this event. We need to see WP:SUSTAINED coverage in multiple kinds of sources to prove long-term significance. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. FYI We've had bus and plane crashes with multiple deaths get deleted in the past for this reason. Many vehicular accidents of all kinds happen every day around the world. We don't include them unless they have lasting significance that is not WP:ROUTINE news coverage immediately after the event.4meter4 (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

um… That fallacy doesn’t apply here. I’m not pointing at other existing articles. How does this article meet WP:EVENTCRIT?4meter4 (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No fatalities, yes, but this does appear to have been a case of a scheduled airline flight that resulted in the hull loss of an aircraft, which is by general consensus the other bar (besides fatalities) for an aircraft accident to be notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um… that is not a policy based argument under any notability guideline.4meter4 (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per WP:EVENTCRIT: Per criterion #4, "routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." There isn't much that would give this event enduring significance since none of the sources I've found had in-depth coverage of the event since the said coverage either happened in the aftermath of the accident or after the release of the final report, with most news coverage in persian rehashing what was contained in the final report without any analysis. Alternatively, a merge to Caspian Airlines#Accidents and incidents is also a possibility. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Nepal Premier League

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

No evidence this upcoming season actually passes WP:GNG, and so a separate season article is not required. All useful information is being captured in Nepal Premier League main article, this is a needless WP:CFORK. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Nepal. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
stfu 2400:1A00:B012:6E03:A4FD:11F8:6D84:5348 (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a policy-based reason for keeping this article, and also violates WP:AGF/WP:NPA. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:CRYSTAL. It's WP:TOOSOON for an article. The season may become notable, but the sourcing isn't going to be there until the season is happening and coverage emerges. I think the season is likely going to be notable, so moving to draft is the best option at present. Once enough significant coverage is added it can be moved back into main space.4meter4 (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify not ready for mainspace. Nxcrypto Message 09:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I oppose the deletion of this article. The inaugural season of the 2024 Nepal Premier League (NPL) is a significant milestone in Nepal's cricket history, warranting its own article. Dismissing its notability undermines the cultural and sporting impact of the NPL, which is Nepal's premier cricket tournament. Reliable sources have been added in the league extensively, satisfying WP:CFORK, and preserving this article ensures proper documentation of Nepal's cricketing heritage. Moreover, consolidating all information in the main NPL article risks oversimplifying the league’s significance, making this article valuable for detailed reference. And telling directly that this season of the leauge has no evidence states indirect disrespect of the leauge cause it's the first season of it. And as mentioned Nepal Premier Leauge itself covers general info about the leauge but this article presents much info about the upcoming season 2024 so it isn't needless. Xaloria (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The 2024 season is starting soon (two weeks from today). I am sure this page will exist in two weeks so, let's be patient and keep the page as it already has taken shape and information. SNOW 977 (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Valencian Community motorcycle Grand Prix

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

Fails WP:GNG. An event being cancelled doesn't reach the level of notability to have an entire article. This could be a note added to another article about the event cancellation. Demt1298 (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Demt1298 (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are several news articles that support the claim of a Valencian GP before it was being cancelled. Otherwise, redirect back to 2024 MotoGP World Championship. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 18:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 Solidarity motorcycle Grand Prix (the event replacing the nominated article) once it's created. MSportWiki (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Big Matches

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

Don't need separate seaon articles for this schools cricket tournament. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also ominating an article for a match played as part of this season:

Delete both. Both fail GNG. Information can be hosted in Big match, and Battle of the Babes articles. Chanaka L (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. We don't cover school's cricket unless very historic, and even then we do not cover seasons. AA (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No need to separate each edition. -- IDB.S (talk) 07:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nom.
Shrug02 (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Wynne–Parkin tornado

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

This article was first brought up on a project-space talk page by someone, although I can't remember exactly where. Seems to fail WP:NWEATHER from a cursory glance, no significant, lasting impacts, wasn't the deadliest tornado of the outbreak (which I know isn't a valid deletion reason), and over half of the references are to the NWS. E_F⁵ 20:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Tennessee. E_F⁵ 20:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed Only 13/30 resources are from NWS, which makes up 43%, so you saying over half are from NWS is hyperbolic. This caused a lasting impact in the city of Wynne and the tornado is talked about through articles to this day. Just because it wasn't the deadliest doesn't mean it doesn't deserve and article, using that logic, the Greenfield Tornado shouldn't get an article because it wasn't the deadliest tornado of the outbreak sequence, so yeah, how l the amount of death the tornado caused is not a valid reason to delete the article. Hoguert (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair with the Greenfield tornado rationale, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. E_F⁵ 20:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay comparing articles is not really a good argument on my part but I still stand by everything else I've said Hoguert (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a bit early to gauge a "lasting" impact, only one year after the event? Geschichte (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usually (at least with tornadoes), discussion of a tornado six months-or-so after the event shows the tornado’s lasting impacts, which I don’t see here. E_F⁵ 22:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify – For stand-alone articles on individual tornadoes, I look for a couple of things. (1) Is there lasting impacts and lasting coverage, (2) if out of draftspace, does the article have the potential to pass GAN (since to me, that helps establish if it deserves to be split from the outbreak article), and (3) size of article vs outbreak section.

Based on a quick Google search, I see lasting coverage, with several articles published related to the tornado and/or damage caused over a year later (examples: [2][3][4][5]) Two of those articles are related to the High School, so I see lasting impacts as well just based on those articles. In fact, searching "2023 Wynne tornado" and setting the news articles to start at the most recent shows an article within the last week related to the tornado/damage. So lasting coverage (WP:LASTING part of WP:Notability) is a checkmark.
Does it have enough to pass GAN? In my opinion, yes. It 100% needs some work done, which is why I also mentioned possible draftification. However, as a writer of several stand-alone GA tornado articles, roughly 20k bytes is the minimum for GAN potential. I know size itself is not factored into GAN, but 20k bytes or more in size most likely will give enough detail-based length for a successful GAN. This article has over 25k bytes, so a checkmark there.
Size comparison between 2023 Wynne–Parkin tornado & the parent section Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023#Wynne–Parkin–Turrell, Arkansas/Drummonds–Burlison, Tennessee. The section in the outbreak article, which is specifically for the damage path, is 11.5k bytes. The stand-alone section for the track is 13.4k bytes. An aftermath section specific to the tornado adds 2.4k bytes. The meteorological synopsis section is not unique, so that size does not count and neither does the introduction. So in all, the stand-alone article has roughly only 4,300 bytes (aka characters) worth of additional unique-to-the-tornado content. The outbreak section cites 3 sources for the tornado track, while the article cites about 23 sources for the track + aftermath sections. To me, the additional byte length is probably the sources. Therefore, there is not much unique-to-the-tornado content in the article. For me, this is the main reason I would say draftify rather than delete. To me, this point is an X.

More unique info over the outbreak section would for sure make it notable for an article. I am ok with it remaining an article itself under the ideology of WP:FIXIT occurring. I do not believe this should be deleted, but at the present moment, I am leaning against it remaining in mainspace without additional information being added to the article/aftermath section. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent analysis, I should probably use the “would it be a GA” test more often. I would also support draftification, as it’s clear a lot of work (kudos to Hoguert) was put into this article. E_F⁵ 22:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford High School shooting

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

Sadly, incidents like school shootings aren't that uncommon, we simply can't document every single one on Wikipedia. Cyber the tiger (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no valid policy basis for this nomination. It has been covered by many reliable sources and has high notability considering it is a first, according to this text from the article: "James and Jennifer Crumbley were the first US parents to be charged with having responsibility for a mass school shooting by a child." - Fuzheado | Talk 18:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For the legal issues, this event is newsworthy and Wikipedia-notable. David notMD (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a widely-covered event... even if we cannot cover "every" such incident, this incident is notable enough for Wikipedia. Casinator (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Did someone draw a line in the sand that put an exact number on how many is too many, or not enough? Re how many, please have a glance at the article's two bottom nav boxes, as well as the large lists of categories of the same subject. — Maile (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some aren’t notable, but some are. If it gets significant, analytical and continued coverage it is. Trying to judge based on our own opinions how important it is instead of going by how covered it was by sources is dumb. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Known shooting that was significantly covered. I don't even have to explain why to keep it into detail, as it is one of the pretty known shootings. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wide international coverage in reliable sources. WWGB (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - there is detailed coverage for this event, from the day it occurred, through the manhunt for the parents, and through their trial. This tragic event is a legal landmark case, and there wasn't any valid reasons given for deletion. This should be closed immediately. It was a very misguided nomination. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 03:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that there are probably some school shooting articles that are marginal, but this definitely isn't one. As far as importance goes, this event is up there with Columbine, Parkland and Sandy Hook in the vital coverage of school shootings. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable event that should be archived. All shootings should be documented until they ARE uncommon again. JustCopewithit (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Mazeroski's 1960 World Series home run

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

This is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK for a baseball play that isn't notable outside of the 1960 World Series, where it happened. Some details in this article have no relevance to it (the Yankees trading for Roger Maris and Maris's 1960 season, for instance). Other relevant details can remain at other relevant pages, like Bill Mazeroski and 1960 Pittsburgh Pirates season. The broadcaster calls are non-notable WP:CRUFT. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is one of the most iconic baseball moments in history and still receiving significant independent coverage. mlb.com, history.com, rumbunter.com, Baseball Hall of Fame, Society for American Baseball Research, and WTAE to list a few recent sources.--User:Namiba 19:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is this particular baseball play not notable outside of the 1960 World Series, where it happened? Bare in mind, that Bill Mazeroski hit the very first home run to conclude a World Series. Other than Joe Carter in 1993, no World Series in the now over the 120+ year history of the event has concluded with a walk off, game winning home run. The bottom-line and point is that Bill Mazeroski's home run is not only one of the most iconic moments in baseball history, but it's one of the most iconic home runs in the history of all of sports. There's a lot of significance independently from the rest of the 1960 World Series. And yes, the broadcaster calls are at least from my perspective, notable because keep in mind that the original NBC telecast of Game 7 of the 1960 World Series was long thought to be lost, until September 2010, when a kinescope was discovered in the old wine cellar of Bing Crosby's (who was a partial owner of the Pittsburgh Pirates). BornonJune8 (talk) 1:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Also, as previously mentioned, there are numerous articles about Bill Mazeroski's home run, including on the official websites of the Baseball Hall of Fame and Major League Baseball. And here's an article about the recently passed 64th anniversary of the home run. And here's one about the 60th anniversary back in 2020. History.com has an article on it titled The Most Dramatic Home Run in World Series History. Furthermore, here's an article on the Mazeroski home run from talkers.com entitled The Greatest Home Run. This article from ktvb.com called it the "greatest World Series walk-off of all time." And here's how Sports Illustrated documented the home run and the events leading up to it shortly after it first happened back in October 1960. BornonJune8 (talk) 2:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep: passes WP:NEVENT. In addition to the coverage shown above by Namiba and BornonJune8, from a basic Google Books search there's a chapter of this book discussing the event, a chapter of this book, and up to 18 mentions in this book. Left guide (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments made hitherto and sourcing. jp×g 🗯️ 14:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Nagpur Muncipal Corporation election

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

Future Event, not yet organised, nominated per WP:FUTUREEVENT as no reference present. kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 16:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 16:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Maharashtra. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources for notability. James Tensky (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parents' Worship Day

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:INHERITED, this subject has got little coverage only because of its creator Asaram. The coverage of this subject is nil since Asaram's own image is going through a deep crisis for many years. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Parents Worship Day is a widely celebrated festival in India. It is well recognized by government officials. As stated in the article: It is officially celebrated by the Chhattisgarh Govt in schools and colleges as ordered by the Chief Minister. State government led by the Bharatiya Janata Party made it an official celebration. In 2017 the District collector in Madhya Pradesh issued a notice for schools to celebrate it and so on. There are a lot of independent and reliable references which prove the validity of these statements. This article must not be nominated for discussion just because the image of the initiator i.e. Asaram Bapu is under crisis. Wikipedia is a platform that depends on facts and notability of an article and this festival is being celebrated since more than 10 years in India and it's a compulsory program to attend for thousands of school students all over India. SukritiVarma (talk) 09:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Indiana earthquake

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

Fails WP:GNG, no lasting impact. Dozens of similarly-sized earthquakes occur in the Midwest and Eastern seaboard every year, we don't need an article documenting these if they don't have any noteworthy consequences. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete as non-notable. Perhaps there is a list article it can be pointed or merged to. 13:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. List of earthquakes in 2010 and List of earthquakes in the United States don't go down as far as magnitude 3.8. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – These kinds of low intensity events are fine for WikiNews, but they lack encyclopedic value. Redirecting to one of our lists is not an option, because there are minimum standards for entries.

New Hampshire Liberty Forum

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libertarianism-related deletion discussions. BootsED (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating page for deletion for the following issues per WP:DP.

1. Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content

The article contains large amounts of puffery and reads like an advertisement. Majority of the article is a list of speakers at conventions, mentions of their books, and external bare urls to their blogs or other websites.

2. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes

The article does not list sources for claims of speakers at various conferences. Several existing sources are primary sources.

The article makes false and misleading claims, engages in original research with no sources, and presents their subjects in a promotional manner.

Example 1, stating that "James O'Keefe – journalist whose investigations have exposed corruption and malfeasance in major taxpayer-funded institutions, including ACORN, Planned Parenthood and NPR". James O'Keefe is a far-right activist that uses deceptively edited videos to attack mainstream media sources and progressive sources, and whose videos exposing corruption have been verifiably proven false, as in the case with the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy.

Example 2, stating "Ben Swann – Emmy Award-winning journalist" but not including any mention that he is a well-known, notable conspiracy theorist.

Example 3: stating "Stefan Molyneux – host of Freedomain Radio" but not mentioning how he is best known as a white nationalist.

3. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed

I cannot find reliable, non-primary sources for the large majority of the claimed speakers at these conventions.

4. Articles with subjects that fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)

Majority of the individuals listed fail notability requirements. BootsED (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need more than the nominator's opinion here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 New Way Cargo Airlines Ilyushin Il-76 shootdown

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2024 New Way Cargo Airlines Ilyushin Il-76 shootdown (3rd nomination)

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

Per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:NOTNEWS although notable at first sustained coverage died off quick. There has been no expanded reports on the incident. A crash of a heavy aircraft with fatalities under 10 has no notability in itself.

@ me in the below discussion when you comment so i can get the fastest response or see your comment ASAP. Lolzer3k 03:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Aviation, and Sudan. Lolzer3k 03:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a scheduled flight or a passenger flight (these are generally considered automatically notable), and it appears to have been a military flight or military-operated flight, in which case a shootdown isn't notable, it's fortunes of war. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I created this article when it was said that this was a civilian cargo plane, but since now it is practiacally confirmed it was a military one, and since no important figures were killed, and there were no particular consequences nor continued coverage I think we Can delete it. - SignorPignolini _Talk 06:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I was going to suggest a merge but I see there's already a brief, but sufficient, mention at the bottom of the Sudanese civil war (2023–present) § United Arab Emirates section. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jay D. Easy (t) 20:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. EBLDP (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This won't be kept, but the only issue with it is really that the coverage window was too close in time to the accident. Articles like this show that there may be further coverage, in which case I would have absolutely no problem restoring this article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The event has received significant in-depth coverage in secondary sources that currently justify its retention. It's too soon to determine whether the event will have sustained continued coverage or lasting effects. Sources:^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationwikiflight (talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Crashed IL-76 in North Darfur: Sorting through the wreckage". Centre for Information Resilience. 31 October 2024. Archived from the original on 11 November 2024. Retrieved 11 November 2024.
^ Dubrovsky, Andrei (25 October 2024). "Mistake or planned sabotage: What is known about the death of the plane with russians on board in Sudan's Darfur?". Afrinz. Archived from the original on 11 November 2024. Retrieved 11 November 2024.
^ Abdelaziz, Khalid; Levinson, Reade; Lebedev, Filipp (24 October 2024). "Exclusive: Plane downed in Darfur with suspected Russian crew was supplying army, rivals say". Reuters. Archived from the original on 29 October 2024. Retrieved 11 November 2024.
^ "RETRACTED: Sudanese paramilitary mistakenly shoots down UAE cargo plane". Sudan War Monitor. 21 October 2024. Archived from the original on 29 October 2024. Retrieved 11 November 2024.
^ "Mercenary aviation: Russian cargo planes helped both sides in Sudan's war". Sudan War Monitor. 27 October 2024. Archived from the original on 11 November 2024.

Keep: I believe this event meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines:

Significance: The incident involves a military aircraft, and any military engagements resulting in casualties often have broader implications for regional stability and/or international relations. This particular event is noteworthy given the ongoing issues Sudan is facing.
Media Coverage: There has been significant media coverage of the incident, which explains what happened in the incident thoroughly. Reliable sources have reported on the details of the event. Some citations which I easily found are here, here, here, and here that discuss the incident in detail.
Aviation Context: This incident is part of a bigger story about military planes that have accidents in war zones. Adding it to Wikipedia helps people understand the dangers and problems that military aircraft deal with. Also, I don't think heavy military aircraft, like the Il-76, involved in shoot-downs is ordinary. They do have significant information.

Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 05:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 05:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hacked. This is a significant incident with in-depth coverage. The reference to guidelines for “routine” coverage in the earlier discussion are strained. WilsonP NYC (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There's nothing WP:ROUTINE about this story or its coverage. Per Hacked, this article details a significant event, for which there has been WP:SIGCOV. Although the coverage seems to have died down, it think it's still too soon for deletion.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023 mid-south U.S. floods

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

Nominating yet another one of my articles for deletion for the same reasons: it fails WP:NSUSTAINED too. Most of the coverage for this event is only when the flooding took place, and that's about it. There's this article regarding the aftermath, but other than that, there's nothing else to be found. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge to Floods in the United States (2000–present), but given that this event kinda occurred in a localized area, I'm unsure if that's a good alternative for deletion in this case. Either way, this fails WP:NEVENT on the basis of sustained coverage, which this article doesn't really have. ~ Tails Wx 04:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee. ~ Tails Wx 04:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Floods in the United States (2000-present), which seems to be an appropriate place to mention this (and again, shocked it’s not already there.) However, unlike July 2023 Western Kentucky floods, there might not be enough to put in there, thus I’m not opposed to outright deletion. 74.101.118.218 (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Srinagar attack

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. I'm only seeing routine coverage, and no in-depth coverage. Not sure if this is going to have any lasting effect or receive any more coverage than what's already there. --Ratekreel (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. --Ratekreel (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to note that the title of this article is misleading. It should have been named somthing like 2024 Khanyar/Srinagar gunfight/encounter, given it was not an attack. --Ratekreel (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Terrorism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Southern Appalachian earthquake

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

No damage, injuries, or deaths, and no lasting impact, so may fail WP:EVENT. Dawnseeker2000 02:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Geography, and Tennessee. Dawnseeker2000 02:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Didn't cause any damage or injuries. Doesn't seem notable. Hardly any coverage other than on the day of the quake. Seems to fail WP:EVENT to me. Procyon117 (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the "seismic events" section of Eastern Tennessee seismic zone where the earthquake is already mentioned. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano ☕️ 22:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Smoluća

AfDs for this article:

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

This siege, its relief and the evacuation of the population is covered in a short paragraph in the comprehensive two-volume US history of these wars, Balkan Battlegrounds. It doesn't include much of what is in the current paragraph headed Order of battle, and when summarised would amount to a few sentences at best. A Google Books search adds very little in terms of possible reliable sources, none of which constitute significant coverage. I could trim it down to just what the source does say, but the editor responsible has done this before, and therefore this is a classic WP:TNT candidate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that this was a minor action in the overall fighting for the Posavina region from March 1992 to January 1993, and might be mentioned in a larger article on those operations. But it is definitely not notable on its own. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i can add sources to this article if you let me. It will take a little bit of time because i am finding sources for another article Wynnsanity (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion you are not right. This is a sige and if we have siege of žepa and another smaller cities we should have for this also. Its not the minor action because a lot of civis were saved and both sides took heavy casulties. There are also not so much books about this war in english because nobody cares to be honest about balkans. I agree that is bad if we have only 1 english and 10 serb sources on english wiki but the other articles for other side also have just some tabloid blogs and they are not deleted or even marked as "bad sources", is it a coincidence? I would not say so

All the best Wynnsanity (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All you need is significant coverage in reliable sources. They don't have to be in English. telegraf.rs isn't a reliable source, neither are blogs, fora, local town news portals with no real editorial oversight, or fanboi websites. Most of the articles being created about the Balkan wars of the 90s at the moment are incredibly poorly sourced. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that telegraph is not good source. Can you give me a day or two to find better? I think that they are very badly sources because people from that area dont write or talk about it much, its "taboo". Thanks Wynnsanity (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker, i will undo your text edit today if its okay for you because it will be a lot easier for me to work on this article if i have first version not this one, i will also add content and relevant sources to it right after. I hope you understand and dont mind. Best Wynnsanity (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need, I was caught up with other things and neglected this article. As peace maker said, it does not need its own article since this was a part of a wider Bosnian TO campaign in Lukavac. I might also add that when I first made this article, I was very inexperienced and didn’t know anything about copyright. Orhov (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i made changes and fixed the problem that peacemaker suggested, if you are the editor its up to you, best Wynnsanity (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article should be retained if more is added, like a prelude or aftermath, that is if it is backed up by reliable material. If not, then that is fine with me. Orhov (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to include that, thanks Wynnsanity (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The citations that have been added, like "Fooian & Foo 2002, p. XXX" are not verifiable as they don't provide the title of the book, or publisher etc. No-one can look at it and then check if it is reliable and accurately reflects what is is supposed to be supporting. Unless the full citations are added, we cannot be assured that significant coverage exists in reliable sources, and therefore the article should be deleted. Also, the removal of the material about the Serbs evacuating and withdrawing due to ARBiH pressure and the town being occupied by them is directly relevant to the subject, and deletion of it could be considered censorship to only indicate one side's version of the engagement. I strongly suggest you re-instate it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but this is totally absurd. First of all, in Bosnia people are all Bosnians(muslim, orthodox and catholic) and you cant look at them "black and white" like you do and in every article saying "Bosnians never did anything", "Bosnian atrocities i dont think so" etc. When we few people(editors) who are benevolently editing wikipedia will be deprived of your non-existent criteria where you always want more and more and more and then delete our works and add stars to your main page for contributions, cringe. This is not "one side" POV because here in the article they only explain what happend during the siege and shelling wich is fair and totally honest and you cant as wiki admin look to this topic like that one side never did anything bad and want a milion sources to be "assured", thats not serious. And when one neutral editor "Fanboi" as you called him posted yesterday all that you have asked for(siege, civis..) you have ofcourse ignored and continued with your agenda. Article was in bad shape until we make it be a lot better with our good faith edits, i personally have a big collection about this topics and this is not Naoleonic War to have thousand best sources. I will undo my edits because i dont know how to add and you will have another sources from other editors wich are also not your taste but every article with "Sanjak NEWS, BLOGSPOT" is okay and "reliable" to you because one side is always the victim and we are all "Fanboi", says who? Bill Clinton? Pretty sad to be honest. Wynnsanity (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what are you on about exactly? I have never done anything of the sort. I have rarely edited articles about the Yugoslav Wars of the 90s because I was there for some of it, but the sudden flurry of poorly sourced articles about obscure events drew my attention. Have you even read the reliable source policy? The verifiability policy? These are fundamental to what we do, as is WP:NPOV. All en WP expects is for these many newly created articles on the Yugoslav Wars to be notable in their own right and reliably sourced. If that is too much for you, then perhaps en WP is not for you. If you tell me what the titles are of the books you provided short citations (authors and year of publication, but nothing else) for, I can check them for reliability and that they actually support what you say they do. If they are reliable and do what you say, then perhaps the article will meet WP:N. I know it can be frustrating when other editors question your work, but that is what we do here. It isn't a blog or forum. In any case, take a chill pill, good grief... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search for Borojević and it quickly identified him as a self-published author of aviation books (in the main), and results also indicate he served in the JNA then VRS during the Bosnian War and continued to serve in the VRS afterwards. So, for starters, he's not a historian; secondly, he's self-published; and he's closely affiliated with the VRS given he served in the VRS and the VRS were involved in this engagement. The perception (if not actuality) of a conflict of interest and a likely axe to grind is pretty obvious. I cannot see how his book can be considered reliable, and it certainly can't be used to demonstrate the notability of an article. I will now remove the citations to Borojević from the article. If you believe the book is reliable, feel free to ask for a community opinion at WP:RSN. I have also posted this to Wynnsanity's talk page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me to take pills to calm down, knowing that I'm right in everything I said, but it doesn't matter, I'm used to it here. This is isnt blogforum but is also not your forum to whatever you want. I apologize because I did not write in English how to get to the book, so it turned out that I was manipulating, which is not the case. I think the editor wrote according to that book, I didn't know it was self-proclaimed because it seemed official to me Wynnsanity (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s be really clear here. Nothing I am saying is MY “policy”. Everything I have observed reflects English Wikipedia policy. Now we have more “references” without a title or publisher. What are the titles of the books please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that is impossible to talk with you. You can sell that story to someone else, not me. I don't want to waste my time on insignificant things when anyone with a wrong woldview of can destroy my hard and good work. I'm done with this so delete and do whatever you want. goodbye 2A00:10:990A:F501:40F6:9E0D:C07D:A148 (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for this kind of contentious and contested topic I’d expect sources of the highest quality. Failing that I don’t think we should take anything on trust. There’s too much POV-driven Balkan rubbish on this site anyway. Mccapra (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has already been to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have now removed all the material that is not supported by the two main sources (separate chapters in the same book), both of have barely a paragraph or less on this siege, and some concluding material from the CIA history of the Balkan conflicts. I have removed material supposedly supported by the bare citations with no long citation, as I can't conduct verification. I have also cleaned up the infobox to remove material not supported by the sources. The image has been removed, as it is obviously just a screen shot from a video on youtube or whatever, and is therefore a blatant copyright violation. Other than some minor additional detail from the CIA history, this is the sum total of what is in the verified sources. Please do not restore unsupported material, I will just delete it. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the edited down version by Peacemaker as it passes WP:SIGCOV and removes the WP:OR. If there are future problems after this AFD, I suggest a topic ban be imposed on Red Spino and Wynnsanity and some kind of Protection added to the page. I hope the closing admin will continue to monitor the page and pursue that course of action if there are recurring problems.4meter4 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

[1] "Crashed IL-76 in North Darfur: Sorting through the wreckage". Centre for Information Resilience. 31 October 2024. Archived from the original on 11 November 2024. Retrieved 11 November 2024.

[2] Dubrovsky, Andrei (25 October 2024). "Mistake or planned sabotage: What is known about the death of the plane with russians on board in Sudan's Darfur?". Afrinz. Archived from the original on 11 November 2024. Retrieved 11 November 2024.

[3] Abdelaziz, Khalid; Levinson, Reade; Lebedev, Filipp (24 October 2024). "Exclusive: Plane downed in Darfur with suspected Russian crew was supplying army, rivals say". Reuters. Archived from the original on 29 October 2024. Retrieved 11 November 2024.

[4] "RETRACTED: Sudanese paramilitary mistakenly shoots down UAE cargo plane". Sudan War Monitor. 21 October 2024. Archived from the original on 29 October 2024. Retrieved 11 November 2024.

[5] "Mercenary aviation: Russian cargo planes helped both sides in Sudan's war". Sudan War Monitor. 27 October 2024. Archived from the original on 11 November 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]