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

Sitakunda massacre

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

The article did not meet the criteria for WP:N(E). Both sources provide limited information about the incident. One source even states: চন্দ্রনাথের মেলায় কী ঘটিয়াছে ১৯৫০ সালে, সেখানকার তীর্থযাত্রীদের কী নৃশংস পরিণতি হইয়াছে, সে কাহিনীর সঠিক বৃত্তান্ত আজো অজ্ঞাত। (What happened at the Chandranath Fair in 1950, and what brutal fate befell the pilgrims there—the exact details of the story remain unknown.) [Source: Sinha, Dinesh Chandra, ed. (2012). ১৯৫০: রক্তরঞ্জিত ঢাকা বরিশাল এবং [1950: Bloodstained Dhaka Barisal and more] (in Bengali). Kolkata: Codex. p. 71.]

During a Google search, I came across some social media posts, but all of them were either copied directly from Wikipedia or linked back to it. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 11:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Bangladesh. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 11:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possible delete, it certainly looks weakly sourced. On the other hand, the 2 sources agree that a violent event took place; the social media sources add nothing but are not reason for deletion in themselves. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Doboj and Gradačac (1994)

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

This fighting is covered in two small paragraphs that cover not even a third of one page of the source, a comprehensive history of the Balkan wars of the 90s. I have removed all the non-reliable sources and unsupported material and do not consider that what is left meets the SIGCOV bar. Don't be misled by the mention of "corps", these were lucky if they were brigade-sized formations at the best of times. The fact that a principal source on these wars doesn't provide numbers of troops involved, commanders names or casualty figures is another indication the subject just isn't notable. Perhaps if presented along with all the battles in northeastern Bosnia between August and November, but not at this small scale. Yet another of these recently created articles on individually non-notable actions of this war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Berbir

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

I removed unreliable sources from this article, leaving it uncited. Neither this event, the suburb of Bosanska Gradiska it apparently occurred in, the Croatian unit that apparently participated, or the operation name are mentioned in the comprehensive two-volume CIA history of the 90s wars in the Balkans. A Google Books search found nothing about this fighting either. A non-notable firefight (if it happened at all). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Yet another non-RS page by the same creator. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Intothat darkness 14:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of rugby union matches between Georgia and Portugal

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

Not a notable rivalry, European countries normally play each other regularly without any special meaning for any random pairing. Fram (talk) 11:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Rugby union, Georgia (country), and Portugal. Fram (talk) 11:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Rivalries need to have significant coverage about the relevant details in their history. This is just a statistical collection of games between two nations. Conyo14 (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Georgia Tech vs. Miami football game

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

Clearly a case of WP:NOTNEWS. Certainly was a bad decision that cost Miami the game, and it got coverage afterwards, but no sustained coverage deserving of an article. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, American football, Florida, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a example of how people massively overdo things here, thinking that because other articles have a particular format, any other article must be fleshed out to fill that. None of the background is relevant. None of the game summary is relevant. None of the aftermath is relevant. There was a bad decision at the end of the game that got attention, but the idea this needs a whole article is absurd. They lost a winnable regular season game, big whoop. Reywas92^Talk 03:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reywas92. Had the game had some sort of nickname or an incredible event that would have spanned just a single week's news coverage, I would have opted for more of a keep. This is not the case here as the news coverage has been primarily WP:ROUTINE. Conyo14 (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is not big whoop. Several [1]sources called it one of the worst coaching decisions in the history of football. It even got coverage from the Washington Post. And coverage of the event can be found on November 9, 2024. Oh and there are plenty of sources on the talk page.--38.122.245.52 (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like good content for 2023 Miami Hurricanes football team#Georgia Tech and Mario Cristobal#Miami, not a standalone article. Reywas92^Talk 14:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article doesn't contain sufficient content to justify its existence as a standalone page. A nickname could potentially add more depth to the subject. WikiGiancarloC2 (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Northern Illinois vs. Notre Dame football game

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

No true sustained coverage. Upsets are common in College Football, though this was a significant one at the time. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, American football, Illinois, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need a whole article every time there's an unexpected result. Most of this is fluff, and anything meaningful can be covered in the main season article. Reywas92^Talk 03:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Reywas. Individual games can and should be dealt with in the relevant team season articles. Every "big" game or upset doesn't warrant a stand-alone. I'd probably vote to delete 2024 Alabama vs. Vanderbilt football game for the same reasons. Cbl62 (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ROUTINE. Nothing in the article and nothing I've seen in news articles carry the weight of significant coverage necessary for single-game articles in this instance. Conyo14 (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there’s nothing to suggest it’s historic.38.122.245.52 (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yogasana at the 2022 National Games of India

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. This is one of 4 near-identical articles in the NPP que. I took on to AFD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogasana at the 2023 National Games of India and asked for a thorough discussion as possible guidance for the others and other similar articles. I am AFD'ing the three remaining articles which are are Mallakhamba at the 2023 National Games of India , Archery at the 2023 National Games of India , and Yogasana at the 2022 National Games of India. This would require meeting GNG, i.e. GNG sources on the topic and not only are there not GNG sources, there are no sources except for stats database and as a result the article is stats-only. North8000 (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discussion on 2023 edition. Geschichte (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, India, and Gujarat. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because a sporting event (or election, etc) happened does not mean it needs a standalone article for detailed results without discussion or substantive sources with additional coverage. If all you can do is copy data from the official website, then just link to that website with a summary in the main article because we are not the place to paste statistics by themselves. Reywas92^Talk 20:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a non notable sporting event.115.97.231.229 (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archery at the 2023 National Games of India

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. This is one of 4 near-identical articles in the NPP que. I took on to AFD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogasana at the 2023 National Games of India and asked for a thorough discussion as possible guidance for the others and other similar articles. I am AFD'ing the three remaining articles which are are Mallakhamba at the 2023 National Games of India , Archery at the 2023 National Games of India , and Yogasana at the 2022 National Games of India. This would require meeting GNG, i.e. GNG sources on the topic and not only are there not GNG sources, there are no sources except for stats database and as a result the article is stats-only. North8000 (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Goa-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mallakhamba at the 2023 National Games of India

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. This is one of 4 near-identical articles in the NPP que. I took on to AFD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogasana at the 2023 National Games of India and asked for a thorough discussion as possible guidance for the others and other similar articles. I am AFD'ing the three remaining articles which are are Mallakhamba at the 2023 National Games of India , Archery at the 2023 National Games of India , and Yogasana at the 2022 National Games of India. This would require meeting GNG, i.e. GNG sources on the topic and not only are there not GNG sources, there are no sources except for stats database and as a result the article is stats-only. North8000 (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Goa-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 86 it for going against WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Wikipedia is not a repository of detailed results from every thinkable sports competition. Geschichte (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notabily under WP:SNG or WP:GNG.115.97.231.229 (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Kishtwar encounter

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

As described here at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Akhnoor attack TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please look into bundling such AfDs together, next time. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Bandipora attack

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

As described here at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Akhnoor attack TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Akhnoor attack

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

Kashmir is often described as a warzone, with routine news events frequently occurring (#4). Events lacking historical significance (#1) and substantial national and international reactions (#2) are generally presumed non-notable under WP:EVENT. Also, article lacks WP:CASESTUDY. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Botapathri ambush

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

Kashmir is often described as a warzone, with routine news events frequently occurring (#4). Events lacking historical significance (#1) and substantial national and international reactions (#2) are generally presumed non-notable under WP:EVENT. Also, article lacks WP:CASESTUDY. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Baramulla attack

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

Kashmir is often described as a warzone, with routine news events frequently occurring (#4). Events lacking historical significance (#1) and substantial national and international reactions (#2) are generally presumed non-notable under WP:EVENT. Also, article lacks WP:CASESTUDY. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Ganderbal attack

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

Kashmir is often described as a warzone, with routine news events frequently occurring (#4). Events lacking historical significance (#1) and substantial national and international reactions (#2) are generally presumed non-notable under WP:EVENT. Also, article lacks WP:CASESTUDY. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Srinagar grenade attack

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

Kashmir is often described as a warzone, with routine news events frequently occurring (#4). Events lacking historical significance (#1) and substantial national and international reactions (#2) are generally presumed non-notable under WP:EVENT. Also, article lacks WP:CASESTUDY. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd typically recommend adding this to the respective List of terrorist incidents in [country] article and redirecting, but it's... Kashmir, so unsure of how well that would work. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also can you please bundle AfDs using the same exact rationale next time? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently learned about it[2] and will follow the same procedure going forward. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Chicago Bears–Detroit Lions Thanksgiving game

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

I'm a die hard Lions fan and that's a big part of my editing, but this game isn't particular special or deserving of a standalone article. The only "remarkable" part about it was a mishap regarding taking a timeout at the end, which is a mishap that happens several times a season. Does not warrant a standalone article and should be deleted.

I obviously understand there was bad clock management, there's no doubt about that, but this is barely more than what routinely happens every single season several times. Games are always cost this way, by miscommunications. There's always going to be sensationalized reporting that happens immediately after a game, that's frankly expected. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Illinois, and Michigan. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, calling this an "infamous NFL game" is absurd. E_F⁵ 21:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, I suppose this could be redirected to Bears–Lions rivalry. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want this page to be deleted. I want it to stay. 2601:40A:8400:1820:5D10:B5A6:B02:CF3D (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable enough game. Definite recency bias in this articles creation. This is not one of those games that will be mentioned as an all-timer. The Hail Mary game versus the Commanders, sure, but not this. Maybe it deserves a special mention in the Bears' and Lions' season pages, but nothing more than that. Eg224 (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather keep this page. 2601:40A:8400:1820:5D10:B5A6:B02:CF3D (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and American football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with maybe some selective merging to Matt Eberflus#Chicago Bears. Clearly a case of recentism. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Historic in numerous ways, leading to the firing of a Bears coach midseason for the first time, getting the Lions to their best start in franchise history, as well as one of the most baffling endings to a game ever, even after a comeback by the Bears. I don't think that recency is the only reason why this was created. Aardwolf68 (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

leading to the firing of a Bears coach midseason for the first time – It's certainly not the only reason for the firing, but it is an obvious contributing factor. Let's not act like this was the only reason it was.
Getting the Lions to their best start in franchise history – This took a number of games to accomplish, this game is not special in that regard, and, simply based on team strengths of schedules and records, this game was not expected to go any other way than a Lions win by most pundits.
...as well as one of the most baffling endings to a game ever... — That's certainly subjective. I'd counter by saying it's not even top 10 for the wild and wacky things that have happened to the Lions.
I don't think that recency is the only reason why this was created. – The game will only ever really be mentioned in the context of Matt Eberflus, it'd be fairly unexpected to have long term coverage.

To be honest, the rational provided feels more like WP:ILIKEIT than anything. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While clock management situations, and disastrous ones at that, are common place in the NFL, theres none quite like this one. 26 seconds to get a play off or call a timeout and they do neither until theres 5 seconds left, in which that is the final play of the game. Add on to that the first mid-season head coach firing in the 105 year history of the Bears and the best start in the Detroit Lions 95 year history makes for a pretty historic game. The Butt Fumble was notoriously memed and ridiculed into oblivion so much that the Wikipedia page for said play still exists, so if you take down this game, the butt fumble would deserve to be taken off this site as well. Not to mention the fact that Chicago also faced off in 2 brutal games against divison rivals Green Bay and Minnesota previous to this game, so the Bears were already known for stuff like this, but this was just absolutely mind boggling and set a precedent on how low it could go. The game was also broadcast on CBS to a nationally televised audience, with all time quotes from Nantz and Romo. With all that being said, theres no way that this play would soon be forgot like other mismanaged clock situations and i believe that this page should be kept IBeFlyin (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was deemed a miscommunication by both the QB and the coach for what it's worth, and those are fairly common, especially by inexperienced coaches and rookie quarterbacks. I don't think the standing of Detroit as a team is particularly relevant, or who Chicago played directly before the game. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this game gets memed and ridiculed over time the way the butt fumble has, then there would be a good case for creating a page about this game at that time. But for now that is WP:CRYSTAL. Rlendog (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Bears–Lions rivalry, where a special mention as a notable game can be included. As the nomination noted, there is nothing especially unique about this game. 2024 Chicago Bears season is a much better place to discuss the impact of various games over the season, while Bears–Lions rivalry is a good place to speak directly to this game and what happened. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments related to the Butt Fumble don't hold water, for obvious reasons, but also because, as the nominator noted, poor clock management and miscommunication happens all the time in the NFL. The Butt Fumble was a singularly unique play with few, if any, appropriate comparisons. Although WP:RECENT makes this difficult to judge right now, it is important to put this game in the context of what is being claimed that makes it notable. Eberflus was historically a bad coach who was likely getting fired at the end of the season either way. Although bad, this game was the straw that broke the camel's back, not the only reason for his firing. The fact that the Bears haven't fired a coach mid-season is more of a flukely TV factoid that doesn't really mean much is the grand scheme of things. And lastly, in the grand scheme of crazy endings, this was definitely absurd clock management, but otherwise was a fairly routine end to the game. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not redirect. Non-notable regular season game. Teams miscommunicate and run out of time at the end of games multiple times a season. Likewise, midseason coaching changes are common. I doubt "2024 Chicago Bears–Detroit Lions Thanksgiving game" or anything similar would be a reasonable search term so a WP:COSTLY redirect serves no purpose. Some content can be moved to Eberflus' article or the Bears' current season article. Frank Anchor 14:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This game had a historic outcome and while it’s likely Eberfleus is fired anyway, it’s not in a historical way. It was being reported as far as Laredo and San Francisco. Coaching malpractice has earned articles before- look at 2023 Georgia Tech vs. Miami football game. It was called “the worst clock management in history” by some. Absolutely historic.--38.122.245.52 (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if we merge it to either Matt Eberflus or Bears-Lions rivalry or 2024 Chicago Bears season meaningful information would need to be cut out due to size concerns. Not to mention the Eberflus article is protected until late December. 38.122.245.52 (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It’s both a historic game for the Lions (being their first Thanksgiving win in 7 years), but also a historic game for the Bears as well (for obvious reasons) and given how coaching mishaps of this magnitude are so rare, along with how widely talked about this game (and the near-unanimous calls for the firing of Eberflus after said game) about the game is, I don’t see how you can delete it at this point, though I do understand the arguments for deletion. :KDoppenheimer (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a historic game for both teams. For the Lions, this gave them their best ever start to a season, not to mention their first Thanksgiving win in 7 years. As for the Bears, this caused Matt Eberflus to become the first Head Coach in Bears History to be fired mid season. I see no reason we should delete this. Carson004 (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention I do not see anywhere in that article that would meet deletion criteria for any WP essays, like WP:G12 for example. This never broke any copyright rules Carson004 (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It took more than this game for the Lions to have a "historic" start and it took more than one game to get Eberflus fired. Your argument doesn't really hold water. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree that if this WERE to become noteworthy and talked about like the Buttfumble in the future, then this article can be recreated and should stand. As it stands, however, this definitely feels completely reactionary. Definitely can be mentioned on the Eberflus page, but that's as far as it goes imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.189.135.55 (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I want this page to stay since this game was historic. 2601:40A:8400:1820:5D10:B5A6:B02:CF3D (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maybe over time this game will get memed like the butt fumble due to the clock management at the end of the game, at which point an article about the game would be appropriate (and at such a time the game may have accumulated a more useful nickname than the title being used here). But until then there is nothing special about it. The notion that the game is historic because its Detroit's first Thanksgiving win in 7 years is not a remotely appropriate standard. And the fact that the win gave Detroit its best start ever is not a reason for keeping either. Lots of games have given a team their best start in franchise history, and we don't have articles on them and there would be no reason to. I went to Miami for an example since that one is probably the easiest, given that they had a perfect season in their 7th year as a franchise. In 1966 they won for the first time in their 6th game, so that made for their best start ever. As the franchise's first win, that may well be notable, separate from their best start. They then won 2 more games that season so each of those wins marked the Dolphins' best start too. Then in 1967, they won their opening game, so obviously that represented their best start. Wins in weeks 9 and 10 also gave them their best start ever, so in 1967 the Dolphins had 3 wins that represented their best start ever. Then in 1968, in week 5 they earned a tie putting them at 1-5-1, which was their best start ever. Their remaining 4 wins that season also produced their best start ever, so in 1968 the Dolphins played 5 games that produced their best start ever. In 1969 they never had their best start ever. But that changed in 1970. Their win in week 3 put them at 2-1 for the season, their best start ever, and each of their remaining 8 wins for that season represented their best start ever. So they had 9 games in 1970 that represented their best start ever. In 1971 their win in week 2 put them at 1-0-1, their best start ever, and 7 of their remaining wins represented their best start ever, so they had 8 games that produced their best start ever. Then we get to 1972. They of course started 2-0, which was then their best start ever and each of their remaining 12 wins also represented their best start ever. So 13 games in 1972 produced their best start ever (now some of those games that represented the best start ever for any NFL team and especially the final game that clinched a perfect regular season may well have a claim to notability). So after their initial season, the Dolphins had 38 games where a win or tie produced their best start ever, and no one cares about or remembers most of them. And that's pretty easy one to go through since they won't have another best start ever until they start 15-0. Other teams probably have more than 38 games representing their best start ever, but even at 38, we hardly need ${\textstyle 32\times 38=1216}$ articles about games that almost no one cares about or remembers just because they happen to represent a teams best start ever. Rlendog (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WALLOFTEXT 38.122.245.52 (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More like a well thought out and explained vote that addresses the silly and non-policy based WP:ILIKEIT keep votes. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Perhaps a bit of a weak one. But there is evidence of WP:IMPACT, whether or not Eberflus was an awful coach, a 105-year first and historic season for the Lions is something. Plus sometimes the wider impact is not felt until end-of-season recaps (yes, yes, WP:CRYSTAL and all), but this is just borderline enough in terms of wider significance for me. See the AFD for Hail Murray for a similar article that editors were in a rush to delete and wound up being kept. This was nominated a day or two after its creation, seems like a bit of a rush to me. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Etzedek24: Why are you putting so much weight regarding a "historic season for the Lions" on just this one game? There were 10 other wins besides this one. If anything that sounds like information that doesn't belong in its own article. If the Lions win again next week, does that mean that should also be its own article? Hey man im josh (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All things considered together satisfy WP:IMPACT for me. I don't particularly think one is more important than the other, it's the confluence of them that takes this over the threshold for me. I even did say that I think it is a weaker keep. No need to be hyperbolic. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 04:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to be hyperbolic @Etzedek24, I'm focused on the fact that a number of people have mentioned the Lions' season as a reason for keeping, when from my perspective, it's entirely irrelevant. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The game was impactful, but only really to the franchises themselves, not to the broader culture of the NFL, as all of the other games with dedicated pages are. Nothing particularly distinctive happened this game, it was memorable but poor clock management resulting in you getting less plays off than intended isn't exactly unique. Dak in the 2022 NFC Wildcard stands out in my memory; that game doesn't have it's own page, it is just described on the season pages and 2022 playoffs page. I feel like the Hail Murray is a particularly misguided equivalency because the play itself was notably distinctive; it was a highlight and a signature play with a unique name. It fits in with the other entries on Category:National Football League games, this one just does not, it stands out as the least significant unnamed event on the page. The game was primarily just impactful on the franchises. Thus, talk about the significance to the Lions' season on the Lions' season page, the significance to the Bears' season on the Bears' season page. Talk about that on the Bears–Lions rivalry page. In my opinion, this game does not warrant it's own page. TheHaft (talk) 07:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly Delete This article is completely useless and should be deleted as soon as possible. If this article stays, why don't we have articles about other NFL games in which teams set their records?! And also, this article literally makes no sense, because it has no historical significance, Detroit set its record not only because of this match, and the fact that Detroit lifted the curse of Thanksgiving is absolutely insignificant information. According to this logic, Wikipedia should have articles about Damar Hamlin's collapse in the 2022 Bills—Benglas game and Christian Eriksen's collapse in the 2020 UEFA Denmark—Finland match. Obviously, those articles would have been much more important, since it almost took the lives of two people. 212.164.65.158 (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, have been watching the discussion and am surprised at it having so many keep comments. Hey man im josh is a Lions fan so there is no bias involved, just a commonsense appraisal of this page from a standpoint of notability. Probably a redirect to the fired coach and maybe a sentence or two mention on his page should be added to cover the topic but keeping the page would lower the bar for stand-alone pages for individual NFL games. The only NFL game I ever attended was the game in which Jim McMahon took over the Bears quarterback position. I missed the first quarter and the only touchdown of this Bears-New Orleans game, a game that George Halas said was the worse football game that he ever saw in his life. I consider it a notable game for Halas' comment alone, and McMahon's beginning his reign, which I knew was significant as I watched it happen, led to a couple of great years for the Bears and was icing on the cake. I haven't attended another NFL game because I saw the worse and that's enough for me. But Wikipedia probably wouldn't accept a page about it. The clock mistakes in this 2024 game are similar, and the bottom of the barrel is sometimes only notable to those who remember being there (for three-quarters). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Qurna (Iraq War)

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

Possible hoax. Unsourced. GnocchiFan (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Iraq. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Denmark, Lithuania, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly a complete hoax, possibly just overblown. I spent a decent amount of time trying to determine if this was a real battle or not, and basically came up empty. It is possible, likely even, that at some point there was some sort of contact between insurgents in the vicintiy of Al-Qurna and Multi-National Division (South-East) (Iraq) personell that led to combat action, but at best "battle of Qurna" seems like an exaggeration. This war was covered extensively by the international media, and this article alleges ten coalition fatalities and nearly thirty more wounded, but there are zero sources that confirm this. When we can't confirm an event happened, we should not cover that event. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add that "The main fighting element in the battle was the Lithuanian Mechanized Infantry Platoon." feels particularly hoaxy. There were all of fifty Lithunians in the south of the country at that time, under Danish command, in various areas of operation. The idea that they had their own mechanized infantry platoon seems unlikely. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only Battle of Qurna I could find was the one in WWI, which we already have an article for. Would also be the seventh longest lasting hoax on Wikipedia (if proven to be one). The Danish soldier mentioned in the article is also mentioned in Dancon/Irak#Awards and decorations though, which was added in February 2006, one and a half years before this article was created. However, that addition was (and still is) completely unsourced. Procyon117 (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the verified existence of the WWI battle kind of proves the point, that was <checks notes> exactly one hundred years ago this week, and we have multiple sources and even an illustration of the battle. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Fourth of July shootings

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

Article reads like a press release and does not show any signs of lasting notability. Seems like WP:SYNTH is violated. Also note there was a similar article that was deleted last year. TheAmazingRaspberry (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, Wikipedia is not a news site and there is no connection to any of these shootings other than the fact that the took place on the Fourth of July. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is synth. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence these shootings are connected. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. This is a poster child of synthesis, tying together several different incidents that have nothing to do with one another, other than the day and year. Admittedly, there’s some sourcing that attempts to tie together the threads, but doesn’t. There’s literally no cause and effect, and for that reason, it’s borderline fringe theory. Bearian (talk) 03:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. It's possible there's a notable topic for something like Violence on the Fourth of July, but this isn't even a salvageable starting point. Needs to be built around WP:SECONDARY sources, not news reports of individual incidents. Left guide (talk) 06:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH. Just a collection of non-notable and unrelated incidents. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Baloch wars

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

This appears to be an inappropriate content fork of the First Anglo-Afghan War (and Siege of Kahun), the Second Anglo-Afghan War and Operations against the Marri and Khetran tribes for the three "wars" herein though there are also glaring inconsistencies such as a year of 1917 herein v 1918 for the operations and the one google scholar source for "Anglo-Baloch War of 1839" does not correspond with the date herein for the first war. I do not see anything of value to be merged with these other articles. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Pakistan, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A poorly written synth mess; none of the cited sources establish the notability of this event. Garudam ^Talk! 19:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglo Marri wars back in 2008 closed as "no consensus", was upheld at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 7#Anglo Marri wars, and also resulted in Talk:Marri (tribe)#Anglo Marri wars merger proposal, which went nowhere. Article creator blocked for socking about a year later. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think there was no evidence to keep even back then. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per above editors, "Anglo-Baloch wars" gives no results in Scholar. PadFoot (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, et al. However, do merge citation cleanup I did, to the extent any of the sources used in this erstwhile article (or moved by me to its talk page as unused in the present text) are also used in the "parent" articles and might need cleanup there. I would also suggest poring over the actual content and making sure no specific sourced details in this piece cannot be sensibly merged into one of the others. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A content fork of four pages? No, there's a legitimate topic here. Balochistan was never in Afghanistan. Still, this probably qualifies for TNT given the errors the nom points out. Srnec (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ali Mirza blasphemy case

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

The article doesn't meet WP:GNG, lacking WP:SIGCOV and enough WP:PROOF for the case. Nothing more than a controversy exaggerated in WP:WIKIVOICE. Most part of it is covered at the BLP's main article. MSLQr (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Checking through the page it shows that the article doesn't meet WP:GNG and it lacking WP:SIGCOV and most of the content violated copyright and it can be added under the controversial section of Muhammad Ali Mirza — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalesignature (talk • contribs) 19:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Law, Islam, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a non-notable WP:EVENT with insufficient WP:SIGCOV. The article relies solely on breaking news sources. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 European Cricket League

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

This article is about an amateur cricket competition which fails to meet notability or significant coverage criteria. It is almost totally unsourced and the two references there are both pre-date the event taking place therefore meaning none of the bulk of the information contained in the article, including all the results and statistics, are sourced. An article for the 2024 edition was merged into the page European Cricket League and I propose this as a possible alternative to deletion. Shrug02 (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Europe. Shrug02 (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hanauer Internationale Amateurtheatertage

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

~~Non-notable festival. Cites one source, which is primary.~~ Withdrawn. Significant coverage has been found, thereby making the subject notable. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 18:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 18:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Events. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This stub cites no independent sources, let alone any significant coverage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The quality of the stub is not relevant. The question is whether the subject is notable. In the first two pages of search results, this source discusses the festival in depth. This source, this source and this source describe the festival in three different years. This source and this source discuss individual performances. It would be surprising if an annual event like this had not attracted any attention. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing these sources to my attention. I have now cited most of them. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 02:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Aymatth, plenty of coverage, can be expanded.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball at the 1997 Summer Universiade

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

Fails WP:GNG. Ahri Boy (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Ahri Boy (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naf War

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:MILNG, not enough significant coverage to warrant a standalone article. Garudam ^Talk! 01:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Bangladesh, and Myanmar. Garudam ^Talk! 01:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sources being used also have significant NPOV issues and many portions uncited. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 12:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Del Rey UK and Ireland Tour 2025

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

Not yet organised event, only one reference is all. also references are about past tours. kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 16:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism. kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 16:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is 1 reference about a past performance, her Reading & Leeds festival performance which I felt was appropriate to add due to it taking place in the same place as the current tour. It is an organised event, tickets went on sale today, and is available to view on Del Rey’s website here:https://www.lanadelrey.com/live/ and furthermore here are multiple other references: https://pitchfork.com/news/lana-del-rey-to-play-stadium-concerts-in-united-kingdom-and-ireland/ https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/11/27/lana-del-rey-ticket-prices-uk-ireland-tour/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly27y1v3p7o.amp. I can also add these references to the page itsself. Olivergrandeee (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ireland and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Lana Del Rey live performances per Guliolopez. It is too soon for an article like this, and despite the sources, it fails WP:NTOUR. HorrorLover555 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be okay for me to revert it to a draft and once it’s generated more publicity / if it generates more publicity to re-publish it? This is my first time making an article so this is all really confusing to me sorry Olivergrandeee (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not soon, the tour has been announced and it’s completely sold out. 31.221.218.223 (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events. HorrorLover555 (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Lana Del Rey live performances. Or, failing that, draftify. (Per nom, is WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article on this planned/proposed/future event. Certainly the refs do not support an independent article). Guliolopez (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: as AtD - indeed WP:TOOSOON, but very likely to be sufficiently well established in the near future. Shazback (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should I draftify it? Or should I wait for someone else to do that Olivergrandeee (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. You need to wait until the discussion has come to a consensus, someone will do it once a consensus has been reached, should there be a favor for the article to be draftified. HorrorLover555 (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - per Shazback. Good case for AtD. Very much too soon to warrant an article, but given that its a stadium tour and Del Rey is relatively popular I presume it will be sufficiently notable to warrant an article in the future (as all her other tours have been). estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major Clubs T20 Tournament

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

Domestic cricket tournament with no coverage on independent reliable sources; Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 14:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Sri Lanka. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 14:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons of this tournament also. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 15:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom.
Shrug02 (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hrasnica (1992)

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

The "Course of the battle" section of this article is essentially unsourced, which means that the notability of the entire article is in doubt. I have looked at the two books used as sources, and neither have any mention of this battle, and a Google Books search has likewise failed to find anything. I deleted local news portal sources, as 30 years after the conflict, if this "battle" was going to be documented, it would have been by now. Another dubious article created by one of the several new accounts that have popped up in the space in the last six months. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I searched the comprehensive CIA history of the wars, Balkan Battlegrounds, and it also have no mention of this "battle". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Creator seems to have created many similar pages. Mztourist (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, i totally agree. It seems as if the creator of this article has a thing with creating battles from the Yugoslav wars that are either not real or do not meet the criteria for a wikipedia page. Peja mapping (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Čapljina

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

The "Flow of the operation" section of this article, which concerns the actual subject of this article, is unsourced. The comprehensive CIA history of the Balkan conflicts of the 90s, Balkan Battlegrounds mentions this operation only in passing, in fact in a footnote, not even in the body text. Another article of dubious notability created by new accounts that have popped up in the last few months. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Another poorly sourced page by its creator. Mztourist (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1976 Aeroflot Yakovlev Yak-40 crash

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: Other than databases, there exists no reliable secondary sources that provide (significant) coverage of the event, no in-depth coverage, no (sustained) continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects nor long-term impacts on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Russia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI I have a soft-spot for the Yak-40; it's a pretty little thing that deserved greater success in the wider world.

Anyways - although not especially notable in itself, is this event just one of hundreds of similar articles, and will they go through the same Afd process? Yes, I know, there is a WP: for what I have just done, but see my next point before shooting me down.

One of the reasons for lack of (significant) coverage is surely due to historical censorship in the Soviet Union; in this case their reluctance to acknowledge such aviation ~~crashes~~ accidents? Had this event occurred in the USA, with seven fatalities I am sure it would have been front-page news, and years later spawned an episode of Mayday (Canadian TV series). Was this article always doomed to fail simply because it happened not just in Russia, but in a remote backwater of such a vast country. Where is Ust-kut airport anyway, and does anybody care? But whilst you are there, look at this beauty, steaming out at low-level.

Back on track; there was one part of this accident article that I found most interesting; the aircraft was being used as a freight carrier, not at the end of its career, but in its heyday. It is not what you first think of when you look at the lede image and see those rear-airstairs deployed. The List of accidents and incidents involving the Yakovlev Yak-40 doesn't mention that it was a predominantly cargo flight, and deleting this article would deprive us of that detail. Ok, so I'm clutching at straws now, but there is a real point hidden in that comment.

So, it's a KEEP, pending a response from you (or others) that persuades me to change my mind, which I assure you is a real possibility.

(*) On a separate issue; back in the USSR (!), even though I like to ride my bicycle (I like to ride my bike), I'm fairly sure that I wouldn't be allowed to pedal my agenda incessantly. <coughs>. Ok, that's my way of apologising for interjecting into a conversation between you and third-parties; I am not sure what the correct form is in these cases, although I am rapidly reaching the stage of applying 'do not feed the troll', which seems to be one of the aims of the "project". Maybe I'm Losing My Religion, or maybe I've said too much.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it is a beautiful picture if we're being honest. But back to this discussion, none of this really tells us why this event is notable enough to be kept. It's possible that it could have been notable had it happened in the US, but it's also possible that it couldn't. Maybe if it had been covered on Mayday, it could have been notable enough for a standalone article, but cases such as the 1991 Gulf War KC-135 incident don't have an article (which was sent to AfD a few months ago). In short, a standalone article relies on the existence of secondary sources. None exist. Whether or not there were lasting effects or long-term impacts will need to be demonstrated.

A merge to List of accidents and incidents involving the Yakovlev Yak-40 to include more details is a possibility. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1970s. Article is covered there. Meltdown627 (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Palmetto High School fight

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

Fails WP:LASTING (the single burst of coverage was when the mom was arrested), fights happen all the time, what makes this one different? E_F⁵ 17:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NEVENT fail. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Schools. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:EVENT. Fights between students are a dime-a-dozen. When I was in high school, football games didn't count if there were less than three fights under the bleachers during the game. - Donald Albury 19:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Time to let it to rest. Geschichte (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure these now 30 year-old women would be chagrined that this article exists and the tone of the article body violates WP:BLP deeply; I really do feel like I've participated in an AfD involving this same incident in the past and it was deleted based on that consensus, I just wouldn't remember what it was called. Nate • (chatter) 01:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A high school fight on Wikipedia? Seriously? Procyon117 (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't just any fight. It's a case of child abuse that should teach something about parenting and how schools should handle things like this. What makes this particular incident stand out is the fact that one of the girls' mothers was involved, cheering on her daughter instead of breaking up the fight, which is basically contributing to the delinquency of a minor. It's because of this that the altercation drew significant media coverage and the mother faced charges even though nobody got hurt during the incident. Again, this was beyond a simple high school fight and speaks to us about the responsibilities of parents and schools. Jake Choke (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Contributing to the delinquency of a minor” and “this was beyond a simple high school fight” mean nothing if the event isn’t notable. E_F⁵ 00:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are the page creator, so understandably would like to keep this, but have a read of WP:EVENT which says An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope. There is no WP:LASTING coverage of this. Your sense of it may be exaggerated by your closeness to the situation, but it is really not that unusual and not at all significant. It is, at most, a footnote that could belong in another page, but I would probably revet it even from the school page if I saw it. There is nothing encyclopaedic here, and all your sources are primary (news reporting of the event). That is not an encyclopaedic article (a tertiary source) - you are writing a history (secondary source) and an argument that this is a significant case of child abuse is your own thesis, which is original research. This one will not be kept, and neither should it be. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I said before, these women are now thirty, and a very issue in their childhood shouldn't be following them into middle age, especially one where neither of them could possibly consent to the footage being released. Before everyone had a recording device, nobody would have cared. Nobody cares now about it in 2024, and the girls deserve peace at this point. Nate • (chatter) 02:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:EVENT. Imagine if every high school fight gets an article on Wikipedia? I don't see any reason why this is worthy of notice. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained above why it is. Jake Choke (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact you want to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS does not make this fight notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fight, fails WP:EVENT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Rogovë

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

Is WP:NOT, does not meet the criteria for a wikipedia article as it is not in-depth and neither are the sources. It has no information on the fighting during the battle, only giving a "basic layout" of the battle (e.x the casualties,date,result etc...).This battle also had its own article a couple of months ago but it got deleted, this current article is just an attempt to bring back the deleted one, however it does not meet wikipedias guidelines.(And also im not saying that the battle never happened, it just doesnt deserve its own article).Peja mapping (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG lacking WP:RS. Article creator seems to have created a number of pages that are not well-sourced. Mztourist (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Gursimran Kaur

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

A sad story, but has no evidence of WP:SUSTAINED notability (one local follow-up story after the initial wider range of news reports). Fails WP:NOTNEWS. Fram (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Canada. Fram (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's sad but there are several isolated industrial incidents such as this. She was not notable before her death and her death has not received sustained coverage or forced significant reform to be eligible for an entry. Mekomo (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a notable article and well-cited and I agree with @Zachary Klaas This is a national and international story about work conditions leading to a burning death in an oven. QalasQalas (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's disturbing this is even being debated. Nation-wide story in Canada. Reported on by CNN. That's enough for notability. It's also hard for "significant reform" to be forced if Wikipedia erases its entry on said nation-wide and international story. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Times Of India is following this as well. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/nri/us-canada-news/no-foul-play-in-death-of-gursimran-kaur-walmart-employee-found-in-oven-canadian-police/articleshow/115433459.cms - why do you suppose this story about an Indo-Canadian might have been of interest to people in India? Saying the story is not notable suggests certain groups of people are not notable for their interest in the story. (Trying to say that with as much assumption of good will as possible.)

People also picked up the story. https://people.com/walmart-employees-family-traumatized-after-body-mysteriously-found-in-walk-in-oven-8737147 Being in that magazine is usually considered a slam dunk for what's considered "notable". Why not in this case?

There's also an indication that South Asian immigrants in Canada continue to follow the story - a news story from two days ago says the family is retaining legal representation and that the Maritime Sikh Society is "deeply upset" by the recent police findings. https://desibuzzcanada.com/post/police-say-no-foul-play-suspected-in-indo-canadian-woman-who-died-in-walmart-oven

Comment I have removed three sources from the article. Two were unreliable or deprecated per WP:RSP. One was about a completely unrelated subject. I have not yet analyzed notability more generally. Toadspike [Talk] 09:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yes the event got coverage in Canada, it's basically an industrial accident. Other than passing away, there isn't much more to be said about the individual. The event isn't terribly notable either; workplace deaths are rare but not unheard of... Could be re-created if it's found to cause changes in labour/safety laws. I hate to use the ROUTINE, but this was just a non-notable person that passed away in a workplace incident. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To put this in perspective, there were 220 deaths in the workplace, in Ontario, in 2022. [3]. Industrial accidents happen and most are not notable. This event happened in another province, but it's one in a list of many. Oaktree b (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:EVENTCRIT: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. An article would be justified if e.g. the tragedy led to workplace safety reforms, if it had broader effects for the Indian community in Canada, etc. - but not currently. Astaire (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battles for Gornje Kolibe

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

This skirmish was a very small part of Operation Corridor 92, for which we already have a Good Article which doesn't even mention this event due to its very minor nature. The village of Gornje Kolibe is mentioned once in the second volume of the comprehensive CIA history of the 90s wars in the Balkans, "Balkan Battlegrounds", but only briefly in the context of Operation Corridor 92, and none of the detail of this fighting is even mentioned. Non-notable firefight, appears to have been created effectively as a memorial page to those who fought there. Events from 30 years ago in this war have been examined in considerable detail in academic standard publications, so I have deleted the various local/town/regional news portals, many of which are dubious and/or biased and have no real editorial process (and therefore not reliable), and what is left (cited) is pretty much nothing. One of numerous highly marginally notable articles recently created by a series of now blocked socks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should say that the other (none news portal) sources I removed were writings of former VRS officers, including at least two whom were directly involved in Operation Corridor 92, so hardly independent of the subject. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Peacemaker67 would a possible WP:ATD be a selective merge to the the village of Gornje Kolibe? We have practically no content on the village and this would seem to be a pertinent event to the history of that village? Obviously any unverified content shouldn't be moved over.4meter4 (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gornje Kolibe per 4meter4. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb The town doesn't currently mention the event. We can only redirect to articles where the topic is addressed; hence the need to make this a "selective merge". Best.4meter4 (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
very limited material to selectively merge, but yes. I would also add a sentence to the Operation Corridor 92 article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gornje Kolibe or Operation Corridor 92 if possible. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or redirect? If yes, what target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

to me, given this is about the fighting, the most obvious merge target is Operation Corridor 92 rather than the village article (although a mention of the fighting in the village article would be appropriate. Only a very small amount of the content is eligible to be merged, as it wouldn't be appropriate to merge uncited content to a Good Article, and the reliable sources barely mention this fighting in passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-Kannauj War

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

A mere raid that has been vaguely stretched into a War article. RSes do not refer to it as "Sino-Kannauj War", full of WP:HOAX. The article clearly fails to establish WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:@HistoryofAryavart Why there cant be a article? And better check sources and it has a coverage in sources a mere raid doesnt mean it cant have a article and what hoax? whicj info is wrong this Afd seems to based on your POV theres quit ample content for a article title can be changed. Also the theres literally a newsarticle over this in references this suggests that its quit notable.

Edasf«Talk» 12:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC) Edasf «Talk» 12:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing about notability you completely ignored that its even listed at China-India relations article dont think a non notable thing would be listed here. Edasf «Talk» 13:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how it works. News articles and blogs are not RSes please go through WP:MILNG and WP:RS. I have checked all of the cited sources and non of it explicitly describes "Sino-Kannauj War". The issue of HOAX and GNG still remains unless the article is backed by reliable source that can corroborate to the topic and not some attack or raid. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofAryavart Newsa article isnt only source there and there are also books who are definitely RS by Reliable authors and I have moved page Edasf «Talk» 13:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to be found about "Sino-Kannauj War" in the sources, quote the sources explicitly mentioning this event. And please do not move the article while the Afd is going on. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heres one Prabhod Chandra Bagchi (2011) "The very same year 647 the Wang Xuance was sent to another imperial mission to Magadha.On his arrival he found that Harsha had died and his minister Arunasva King of Tirabhukti had usurped the throne.The Chinese mission wasnt well recieved its escorts murdered and treasures plundered,Wang Xuance manage to save himself and fled to Nepal which was allied to China through Tibet.There he gathered the milltary support from mercenary Nepali and Tibetan troops and marched on Magadha" Its not full quote theres more but I dont have time you can check the source only.@HistoryofAryavart Edasf «Talk» 13:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename There is sufficient coverage for the historical event however the invasion took place purely in the Tirhut/Mithila region of Northern Bihar and Arunasava/Arjuna is described as being the governor or ruler of Tirhut first and foremost hence I believe the article should be renamed to reflect this e.g. the Chinese Invasion of Tirhut.Ixudi (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ixudi I am OK for it Edasf «Talk» 14:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the historians don't even consider the Chinese accounts as reliable or based on historical events but a hoax. For eg see what Majumdar has to say on this event:
- p. 125
  In any case, it is impossible to draw any reliable conclusion from this picture of an invincible hero painted by himself.
- p. 124
  But the Chinese account of the embassy of Wang-hiuen-tse which, as noted above, reached India immediately after the death of Harsha, has preserved some curious details of the history of this period. Accustomed as we are to the exaggeration and self-adulation of the Chinese writers, this account beats all records and reads more like a romance or a string of fables than sober history.
The article is based on a fictional account and the hero (Wang-hiuen-tse) is painted by himself. The issue of WP:HOAX still remains and there's no reason for this article to be kept in article mainspace. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofAryavart We can still as a article since you gave several more content if it has coverage then we can keep it after some redraw and your source doesn't completely denies its existence. Edasf «Talk» 14:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article is purely based on a fabricated account and I have quoted the source to show that it's full of hoaxes, hence Majumdar concludes:
p. 126
On the whole, the story of Wang-hiuen-tse has little historical value, except as a general indication of the anarchy and confusion prevailing in North Biliar and the neighbouring region after the death of Harsha. What happened to the kingdoms of Thaneswar or Kanauj we cannot say, but there is no ground to suppose that Harsha’s death was followed by a political upheaval in the whole of North India.

HistoryofAryavart (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofAryavart First of all there are other sources as well which do consider it historical and Majumdar is not complete RS since he's no longer a introductory textbooks and his nationalist nature.You need multiple source and Majumdar's interpretations can definitely added in Article but this isn't concrete to delete article. Edasf «Talk» 15:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a case WP:HOAX beacuse the article is based on actual stories. Rather the actual article should be edited to reflect that the events detailed in the stories may not necessarily be historically accurate. Ixudi (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have shown how this Chinese account is not taken seriously. And the event doesn't get enough coverage, much less 5-6 lines of passing mentions which doesn't warrant a standalone article, that said it could have been merged into a parent article. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What 5-6 line passages? There are 5-6 pages of it in sources and we usually have separate articles for wars and on what grounds you consider it incapable your POV? Edasf «Talk» 15:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And Ixudi already told that it has sufficient coverage even a 5-6 line passage is if it has coverage. Edasf «Talk» 15:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quote that you excerpted from the Bagchi (2011) has no more than 6 lines of coverage. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not full quote and coverage matters. Edasf «Talk» 08:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm exactly talking about the "full quote" in the source. Garudam ^Talk! 13:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well I have reviewed the sources itself. The topics outrightly fails SIGCOV and the issue of HOAX remains, this topic should have been rather included in parent pages, say Pushyabhuti dynasty but I don't think it clears the certain criterias to have a standalone article. Garudam ^Talk! 13:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Garudam The HOAX is already cleared by Ixudi stop repeating reasonings and again Wars tend to have separate article it helps clear confusion and correct all your signatures above since you changed name and coverage matter. Edasf «Talk» 15:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military and India.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of back and forth, but very few participants. Additional opinions would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syuejia Shang Baijiao and harvesting incense

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

I'm not sure if this article would stay within draftspace if I moved it there, given that the creator just moved it all over the place. Not well sourced, and a WP:BEFORE search failed. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and China. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of this page, and I sincerely apologize. I was trying to move this article to the main page, but due to an operational error, it was unintentionally moved to two or three other locations. Later, I found the correct way to transfer it to the Wikipedia main page. Sources have now been properly cited. ALFART3594 (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are not in fact properly cited. Two sources in a wall of text is not proper citation, as any college student should know. 30 paragraphs of text are completely unsourced, as are three long lists. I don’t mean to be rude, but anyone who’s ever read a Good Wikipedia article knows that this isn’t one. Please start over from scratch. Bearian (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep here from the article creator so Soft Deletion would not be appropriate. But without some policy-based reasons to Keep this article, it looks like it might be heading towards Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Yang, Kate (June 2004). "The Emperor and the Centipede". Taiwan Panorama. Translated by Mayer, David. Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The article notes: "At the end of the ceremony, they always draw water from Chiangchun Creek to symbolize their awareness that "when drinking water, one must remember the source," i.e. be grateful, in this case to their ancestors for pioneering the land that is now their home. The proceedings at the pavilion are referred to as "visiting Baijiao." When the faithful "visit Baijiao," they worship both a god and their ancestors. The ritual is unique among Taiwan's temple festivals in this sense. ... The visit to Baijiao takes place every year and wraps up in about a day, but once every four years Tsuchi Temple elects a new board of trustees and supervisors, and the occasion is marked by the Hsuehchia festival. The main difference between the big festival and the visit to Baijiao is that the procession doesn't just go from Tsuchi Temple to Paichiao Pavilion."
2. Chang, Jung-hsiang 張榮祥 (2024-07-17). "國家重要民俗「學甲上白礁」連3天海內外宮廟雲集" [National Important Folk Custom 'Xuejia Shangbaijiao' Held for 3 Consecutive Days, Temples from Across Taiwan and Abroad Gather] (in Chinese). Central News Agency. Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The article notes: "國家重要民俗「學甲上白礁」刈香祭典，今天在台南市學甲慈濟宮登場，為期3天，海內外逾100座宮廟、藝陣雲集，鑼鼓喧天，信眾擠爆，熱鬧滾滾。保生大帝台灣開基祖廟學甲慈濟宮今天起一連3天舉辦國家重要民俗「學甲上白礁」刈香祭典，由前立法院長王金平擔任主祭官，菲律賓、馬尼拉、新加坡、香港、澳門等海外宮廟也參與這項宗教盛事。"
  From Google Translate: "The nationally important folklore "Xujia Shangbaijiao" Incense Cutting Ceremony was held today at the Xuejia Tzu Chi Palace in Tainan City. It lasted for three days. More than 100 palaces, temples and art formations from home and abroad gathered together. The gongs and drums were noisy, and the believers were crowded and lively. Roll. The Xuejia Tzu Chi Temple, the founder of Emperor Baosheng's ancestors in Taiwan, will hold the nationally important folklore "Xuejia Shangbaijiao" incense cutting ceremony for three consecutive days starting today. Former Legislative Yuan Wang Jinping will serve as the officiant. The Philippines, Manila, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Macau Overseas palaces and temples also participated in this religious event."
3. Huang, Chao-ch'in 黃朝琴 (2023-04-30). "重要民俗「學甲上白礁」授證文化資產永續流傳" [Important Folk Custom 'Xuejia Shangbaijiao' Certified, Cultural Heritage to be Passed Down Sustainably]. Youth Daily News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The article notes: "臺南市「學甲上白礁」去年獲登錄列為國家重要民俗，「學甲慈濟宮」也同步被認定為保存者，今（30）日適逢「上白礁」謁祖祭典隆重登場，文化部頒授重要民俗認定證書，由慈濟宮代表接受，代表民俗文化資產永續流傳，展現臺灣深厚文化生命力。"
  From Google Translate: "Tainan City's "Xujia Shangbaijiao" was registered as a nationally important folk custom last year, and "Xuejia Tzu Chi Palace" was also recognized as a preserver. Today (30th) coincides with the grand debut of the "Shangbaijiao" ancestor worship ceremony. , the Ministry of Culture awarded the Certificate of Important Folklore Recognition, which was accepted by the representative of Tzu Chi Palace, representing the sustainable spread of folk cultural assets and demonstrating the profound cultural vitality of Taiwan."
  The article notes: "「學甲上白礁」從清代發展至今，雖隨著時代演變，但祭典儀式、香境香路及各十三庄宮廟自組之藝閣、陣頭迄今仍維持一定的傳統性，並富含在地文化特色，如儀式性的宮內祭典、白礁亭謁祖祭典；"
  From Google Translate: ""Xuejia Shangbaijiao" has been developed since the Qing Dynasty. Although it has evolved with the times, the rituals, the incense road and the art pavilions and formations organised by each of the Thirteen Village Palaces and Temples have still maintained a certain degree of tradition. It is also rich in local cultural characteristics, such as the ceremonial palace ceremony and the ancestor worship ceremony at Baijiao Pavilion;"
4. Chuang, Yao-tsung 莊曜聰; Chen, I-wei 陳苡葳 (2024-04-18). "台南「學甲上白礁」3天遶境蜈蚣陣揭序幕" [Tainan 'Xuejia Shangbaijiao' 3-Day Procession, Centipede Formation Kicks Off the Event]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The article notes: "國家重要民俗「學甲上白礁」昨起為期3天遶境，共有來自海內外105間宮廟及上百文武陣頭、藝閣共襄盛舉，打頭陣是唯一以人力扛抬的蜈蚣陣，因少子化、人力難覓還差點開天窗，在各方支持下總算順利出陣。"
  From Google Translate: "The nationally important folk custom "Xujia Shangbaijiao" started yesterday for a three-day tour. A total of 105 palaces and temples from home and abroad and hundreds of civil and military formation leaders and art pavilions participated in the grand event. The leading formation is the only centipede formation that is carried manually. Due to the declining birthrate and the difficulty in finding manpower, we almost had to open the skylight. With the support of all parties, they finally got out of the battle successfully."
5. Wen, Cheng-heng 溫正衡 (2022-09-28). "台南300年歷史祭典「學甲上白礁」 9月獲登錄國家重要民俗" [Tainan's 300-Year-Old Festival 'Xuejia Shangbaijiao' Registered as a National Important Folk Custom in September] (in Chinese). Public Television Service. Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The article notes: "歷經1年停辦，1年縮小規模的學甲慈濟宮上白礁，今年4月9日到11日恢復舉辦，熱鬧非凡。活動中不只有傳統藝陣、廟方還上將軍溪畔舉辦「上白礁」謁祖祭典，象徵飲水思源、不忘本精神，而今年9月更通過文化部審議，成為國家重要民俗。"
  From Google Translate: "After a year of suspension and a year of downsizing, the Tzu Chi Palace on Pedra Branca was resumed from 9 to 11 April April this year, and it was a bustling event. The event not only featured a traditional art array, but the temple also held a "Shangbaijiao" ancestor worship ceremony on the bank of the Shangjiang River, which symbolizes the spirit of drinking water to remember the source and not forgetting one's roots. In September this year, it was approved by the Ministry of Culture and became an important national folk custom."
6. Wang, Han-ping 王涵平 (2024-04-17). "國家重要民俗「學甲上白礁」今起遶境 105間宮廟參與" [National Important Folk Custom 'Xuejia Shangbaijiao' Begins Procession Today, 105 Temples Participate]. Liberty Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The article notes: "國家重要民俗「學甲上白礁」遶境祭典今起為期3天，來自國內外105間宮廟參與，蜈蚣陣出發遶境，大批信眾湧入爭拿神童賜福糖果、鑽轎腳，19日將至頭前寮白礁亭謁祖、請水火。"
  From Google Translate: "The nationally important folklore "Xuejia Shangbaijiao" circumambulation festival will last for three days today. 105 palaces and temples from home and abroad are participating. Centipede formations set out to circumambulate the territory, and a large number of believers poured in to compete for the blessing of the child prodigy. Candies, diamonds on sedan chairs, and the 19th is about to arrive at Touqian Liao Baijiao Pavilion to pay homage to ancestors and invite water and fire."
7. "臺南學甲上白礁" [Tainan Xujia Shangbaijiao] (in Chinese). Radio Taiwan International. 2024-04-14. Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The article notes: "每一年的上白礁活動及四年一科的刈香從未間斷，也呈現學甲慈濟宮保存傳統祭祀儀典的努力，以及三百多年來各方信眾自發性、持續性地參與，具諸多在地特色，例如儀式性的宮內祭典、白礁亭祭典、將軍溪畔的「請水火香」；香陣隊伍中的輦宮文化、真人藝閣、文武陣頭，宋江陣、蜈蚣陣、報馬牛、藝陣;各庄頭與信眾設置點心站等。"
  From Google Translate: "The annual Shangbaijiao activities and the four-year incense cutting have never stopped, which also reflects the efforts of Xuejia Tzu Chi Palace to preserve the traditional sacrificial rituals, as well as the spontaneous and continuous efforts of believers from all walks of life for more than three hundred years. Participation has many local characteristics, such as the ceremonial palace ceremony, Baijiao Pavilion Festival, "inviting water, fire and incense" by the Jiangjun River; the chariot palace culture, real people's art pavilion, civil and military formations, Songjiang formation in the incense array , Centipede Formation, Bao Ma Niu, Art Formation; each village head and believers set up refreshment stations, etc."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Xuejia Shangbaijiao (traditional Chinese: 學甲上白礁; simplified Chinese: 学甲上白礁) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Cunard (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard My one concern is your reliance on Google Translate for a non-Latin based writing system. Google Translate has gotten more accurate throughout the years, but given that languages arose from natural intelligence, I'm still hesitant to rely on artificial intelligence/machine translation.

However, I still encourage you to add the sources to the article, particularly if you know just enough Chinese to know the translations are reliable. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 09:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilkhanate campaign to Bithynia

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

One of many questionable articles by this editor. Couldn't find anything about this so called event - doesn't seem notable. This is the only part of the article that only talks about this event; "This Ilkhanid army succeeded in recapturing several Ottoman-held castles and towns in the region and dealt a blow to Osman I's forces" HistoryofIran (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean keep, but rename Ilkhanid campaign in Bithynia. A real event. See here. Also mentioned here but without a date. I've added two links from articles that refer to it (and have for years). Srnec (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am having a difficult time finding the relevant portions of the sources linked above, but even if two or three sources vaguely mentioned such a campaign (which could also be part of a more major campaign in western Anatolia), this doesn't appear wikinoteworthy, especially given the lack of long-term significance as this was around the time of the relatively obscure beginnings of the Ottoman dynasty. Unless an eye-opening quantity of sources cover this "specific" campaign in depth I fail to see why this should be kept. Aintabli (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with no prejudice against recreation. I think WP:TNT is warranted here, given that the author is banned for hoaxes and this is not a terribly readable or informative stub. -- asilvering (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive in Podrinje (1993)

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

After removing unreliable local news portals etc, we are left with citations to two pages of the CIA history. I checked them, and all three of the citations failed verification, the only apparent reference to this fighting being a paragraph fragment as follows: "The VRS Drina Corps attacked again late in May and crushed Muslim forces in the salient , driving them back some 15 kilometers to the Praca River and eliminating the threat to Visegrad . Follow - on attacks from Cajnice in the southeast toward Gorazde itself , however , gained little ground . " on page 185. This isn't significant coverage, and therefore doesn't meet WP:N. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, to be clear i didnt put this sources but i think that this offensive is in one official book, i will try to find and add content in it, if its bad or not proper, then delete the whole thing (just please dont bring opera singer admins to blocc me like in smolucca) Wynnsanity (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone didn't go to geography classes. Podrinje means "on the river Drina" or "next to the Drina" and thus includes the entire region. at the same time, I checked your claims and of course they are fake, if you had entered and edited the pages without bad intentions, you would have seen that on page 186 it is written "The Bosnian Serbs had nevertheless achieved most of their 1993 objectives in the Drina valley and This time Muslim bravery alone was not enough to prevail against the stronger, better organized and better led Serb troops. The text is badly written and the sources are in the wrong place, but I won't say anything because I understand everything about you and I don't want to be blocked because I love Wikipedia. If you would be kind enough to allow me to only summarize the entire Balkan Battlegrounds article here as I did before, I would appreciate it, thank you Sir Wynnsanity (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep adding material to articles that is clearly not supported by the sources, then you are clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia. I’m not sure what it is you think you are doing, but it is extremely unhelpful to the encyclopaedia. Please stop doing it, either through this account, meat puppets or IPs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

??? 1) I only use this account, the fact that other users are not satisfied with you is your problem 2.) I wrote a text that only appears in Balkan Battl. 3.) you have no arguments and never had any 2A00:10:9910:4C01:193C:197E:5B6B:E8CC (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They say, from an IP. With regards especially to your last point, please remember not to make personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have tagged the bolded Operation "Prača '93" in the lead as dubious, as the sources listed do not use this name. I have also tagged the goals of the operation given in the lead as failed verification, as the goal of the overall offensive (of which this was a part) was to clear the ARBiH from the Drina valley, but the goals listed in the lead are not given in the sources. As it stands now, the "Operation" section has all the material in Balkan Battlegrounds. It consists of a direct copy and paste of a paragraph on page 390 (this is ok as there is no copyright on US government material such as this). The rest of the article is background and aftermath, which really should not be considered when deciding if this subject is notable. There is probably scope for an article covering all VRS offensive operations around Gorazde and Visegrad between January and June 1993 (which takes up about 2/3rds of a page in BB, but this article is a non-notable subset of those operations in my view, and like many of these newly created articles, appears to be focussed only on the point of view of VRS success instead of a neutral point of view. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 11:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have now removed material from the infobox not cited in the article, and removed the unused reference. I have also reinstated the dubious tag on the operation name that was removed as part of the reverted draftification in the last 24 hours. In my view, a brief mention of this minor operation comprising a single paragraph in the single source (and here), is insufficient to meet WP:SIGCOV. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
for clarity, Vol 2 of BB is a more detailed version of Vol 1, so it doesn’t mean there is a second source, the map is likewise from BB. The new bolded title is only partially supported, as the second village was still on the frontline, and was not fully captured in this fighting. I remain of the view that this event lacks SIGCOV. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment talk about constant moving of the goalposts, now the bolded title has "Kaostice" mentioned, a place not mentioned at all in the only source for this fighting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now it says "Međeđa region"... What "region"? It is a small village. It's hard to keep up with the changes to the title, all of which seems intended to make this event look bigger than it was. It just isn't notable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe 2025

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

Contested draft. WP:BEFORE search reveals a lot about a couple of 2024 pageants (mostly Miss Universe 2024), but little to nothing about Miss Universe 2025. Might be a ”not now” situation. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:TOOSOON it is. This year’s edition concluded recently on November 16. As one of the Big Four beauty pageants, it is anticipated that reliable sources will soon surface as countries finalize their representatives for the 2025 edition (four of which I see are already confirmed, with sources available but not yet included in the article). Furthermore, preparations and hosting bids for the upcoming edition are already in progress, with related updates expected to emerge shortly. I recommend adding tags, a citation or notability warning, to the article, rather than opting for its complete deletion. 'Draftify' is also a recommended approach.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:V (verifiability) and WP:N (notability), the article does not cite any sources to support its claims or establish the subject's significance. It seems more like an attempt to create a page for the sake of it, rather than based on reliable and independent coverage that meets Wikipedia's standards. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOSOON, zero sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOSOON

نوح^فث ^{Let's Chat!} 20:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see WP:TOSOON as a valid reason for deletion in this case. Scheduled or expected future events that are notable and almost certain to occur should be included, as outlined in WP:FUTURE. For an event like Miss Universe, one of the Big Four beauty pageants, its 2025 edition is undoubtedly going to happen. References to its upcoming editions, such as new rules and the introduction of a Latin reality show, are already available. Additionally, host country bids are open, and some participating countries have already begun their selection processes, with a few having finalized their representatives. While the article could be considered taking to draftspace, it definitely does not warrant deletion.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mims Mentor I guess this is a keep !vote. My concerns were more about the lack of sourcing (that is, it's "too soon" to have sourcing) more than anything else. The sourcing has improved since. If only the draftification wasn't contested. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@I dream of horses I agree, the article lacks sources, and the "delete" votes are understandable, particularly regarding concerns about it being "too soon." However, outright deletion doesn't seem rational. For events of high significance, sources often emerge relatively quickly. I recommend exploring Spanish and Thai media, as there’s a strong likelihood of more coverage in these languages, given that the most recent edition was held in Mexico and the organizers are based in Mexico and Thailand. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mims Mentor A non-unilateral draftification is a legit alternative to deletion in this circumstance. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mims Mentor To be clear, do you want to "draftify," "keep," or is either fine? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given its significance, I would prioritize a "keep" vote (I am not against "draftify" if the consensus favours). — MimsMENTOR ^talk 18:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article is not hurting anybody, also there's no need to wait until the last minute for a competition, pageant, tournament etc. to happen in order to have its Wikipedia article. Gianluca91 (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Absolutiva (talk) 10:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for now. Not sure WP:CRYSTALBALL is an appropriate rationale, as per Mims Mentor, it is almost undoubtedly going to happen with early stages and nominations already in progress. I wouldn't be opposed to a keep either though, although imo I would probably wait a while for more sources before it being moved back to mainspace. Procyon117 (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Redirect to the main Miss Universe article. Too soon and this article is not yet ready because most of the necessary details (e.g., specific date, venue, participants, etc.) are not yet confirmed or announced. Vida0007 (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if Miss World 2025's page can be up and running without a date and venue, I don't see why Miss Universe 2025's can't be as well. Since there are contestants who are confirmed and have sources to back up that they will be competing at Miss Universe 2025, I think that should be enough to keep the article. I also don't think WP:CRYSTAL BALL applies here because it's not like we're making an article for Miss Universe 2040, it's the next edition that candidates are already starting to be chosen for. Rararawr21 (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it can't be Kept, then I think Draftification is fine. This will almost certainly happen and sources are beginning to come through so this will eventually be an article in the mainspace anyway, it just depends on when there is enough information/sources. Rararawr21 (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 04:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like this is leaning towards not keeping this in mainspace. But I don't see consensus for any specific outcome yet, whether it be deletion, draftification, or otherwise. Relisting to obtain more discussion around particular outcomes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know it isn't kosher to !vote in an AfD that I started. I just want to make it clear that, if the draftification wasn't contested, I would've draftified it. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:03, 1 December 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]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Here are some reviews of the tour: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] See also: [11], [12]. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For source eval of the sources mentioned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or restore redirect to Union J. This had previously been merged. There are a couple of reviews in those sources, but the first source isn't bylined (and not a RS from the look of it); the Irish Independent is RS, SIGCOV; Oxford Mail local media not bylined; Mancunian Matters is hyper-local but has editorial oversight and is bylined; HitTheFloor is debatable, but a review nonetheless and there's an editor in place; Liverpool Echo is a WP:ROUTINE gig announcement from their sports editor (!); The Scotsman is a bylined review in an RS; the last two sources are an album review and a tour announcement in the Birmingham Mail. All in all, this is mostly routine, does have a couple decent gig reviews in RS but in the whole is not the stuff that amounts to making the TOUR notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions