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

Abu Salim Prison massacre

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

Case of WP:POVFORK. A long-term redirect unilaterally turned into an article by selectively copy pasting from Abu Salim prison and not providing any attribution.[1] Zalaraz (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason why the event regarding the deaths of a 1000 people shouldn't have a page, especially when news and human rights organizations spoke more about the massacre than the prison itself. I heavily condensed the original page's description of the massacre. JPHC2003 (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All details are already found on Abu Salim prison. Why do we need one more article on the same subject? Zalaraz (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Libya. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – Historic event in Libya/Gaddafi regime [2] [3]. Svartner (talk) 09:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Symposium on Power Semiconductor Devices and ICs

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

Declined prod. Created by a single purpose editor and based on primary sources. 2 google scholar hits. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Engineering, and Technology. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing is primary in the article, I can only find another primary source for the 1993 conference [4]. Nothing to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am perplexed by the statements here and in the original PROD. I opposed the PROD because I easily found many proceedings papers with decent cites, e,g. 306, 142 and 781, all these taken from Google Scholar. A conference series that has been going on for 37 years with 500+ attendees is not a monster such as the APS or ACS, but surely we must consider it as notable. I am also perplexed by the nom's statement "Created by a single purpose editor", ignoring the updates by Zanhe in 2019 (who has 132K edits). Pro forma I did a little updating, including the latest proceedings book (they have all been published).Ldm1954 (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: this IEEE search shows ISPSD papers that have been cited in papers or patents, a much, much bigger list than I gave via GS. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Samaritan's Purse Cessna 208 hijacking

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

I've added in sources I've been able to find, per WP:BEFORE. Unfortunately, aside from the AP article, there is very little coverage, with most of the sources having questionable reliability. A redirect to Samaritan's Purse would be appropriate here. 11WB (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Sudan. 11WB (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Covered internationally and aircraft hijackings certainly do not occur often. There have only been three this year, and one was a minor incident. Although no casualties were reported an aircraft hijacking and even an attempt at it, is pretty notable. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Samaritan's Purse - I unfortunately have to agree. It appears this has received a lot less coverage than I expected. - ZLEA ^TǀC 05:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes i know theres limited information but its a hijacking. We have some strong information for an article. Stay Grffffff (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding more info Grffffff (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also i think information comes out slowly due to the war so we should wait Grffffff (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
South Sudan isn't at war. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEVENT: this failed hijacking attempt has seen only minimal WP:ROUTINE coverage and falls under WP:EVENTCRIT#4: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes [...] are usually not notable. The article was clearly created WP:TOOSOON, but I don't think the counter-argument of WP:TOOSOONDEL applies here. In the unlikely event that continued coverage does emerge, the article can always be recreated per WP:USUAL. The event is currently included in List of aircraft hijackings § 2020s, which would thus be a possible redirect target as an WP:ATD, but I'm not convinced that it is WP:DUE there, let alone in the Samaritan's Purse article. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has received a large amount of coverage for a hijacking incident in South Sudan. It also involved an Christian humanitarian organisation which is why christian sources are reporting on this. There is even a investigation starting on this article. Hijackings are usually notable. It has received a large amount of attention outside of Africa. There is still coverage 2 days after the hijacking. It got a lot of attention from sources around the world. I don't get how @ZLEA is claiming there was not much coverage? Hijackings are definitely not routine or run of the mill.

List of news sources

https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/nation-world/samaritans-purse-plane-hijacked-12-3-2025/275-ab113257-df19-40ab-995d-073ae60cee61

https://www.cbs17.com/news/north-carolina-news/we-praise-god-nc-based-samaritans-purse-speaks-out-after-plane-hijacking-ends-safely/

https://www.wbtv.com/2025/12/03/north-carolina-based-nonprofit-has-airplane-hijacked-during-supply-delivery-africa/

https://avweb.com/aviation-news/gunman-arrested-after-hijacking/

https://www.christianpost.com/news/samaritans-purse-plane-hijacked-suspect-in-custody.html

https://churchleaders.com/news/2209790-gunman-hijacks-samaritans-purse-plane.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/12/02/south-sudan-aid-plane-hijacked-gunman/4ca5a946-cfac-11f0-92cb-561ee4e6a771_story.html

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article313388045.html

https://www.wxii12.com/article/gunman-hijacks-plane-south-sudan-and-arrested-after-refueling-stop/69621641

https://www.geo.tv/latest/637342-armed-hijacker-of-us-charity-samaritans-purse-plane-arrested-in-south-sudan

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nc/coastal/news/2025/12/03/samaritan-s-purse-hijack-south-sudan

https://voz.us/en/world/251204/31606/south-sudan-gunman-hijacks-plane-belonging-to-the-american-christian-christian-christian-organization-samaritan-s-purse.html

https://www.sudanspost.com/nss-arrests-armed-suspect-after-attempted-plane-hijacking-in-wau/

https://journalnow.com/article_e2c4642d-ef0a-513c-9869-6c2328a7dc36.html

https://www.fox16.com/crime/north-carolina-based-aid-groups-plane-hijacked-in-south-sudan-gunman-arrested/

https://www.charlottestories.com/armed-hijacker-seizes-nc-based-mission-plane-before-dramatic-safe-landing-in-south-sudan/#google_vignette

https://christiannewsnow.com/gunman-hijacks-samaritans-purse-plane-we-praise-god-that-no-one-was-seriously-injured/ Zaptain United (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more sources:

https://barlamantoday.com/2025/12/04/samaritans-purse-plane-hijacked-in-south-sudan-pilot-lands-safely-after-armed-standoff/

https://www.africanews.com/amp/2025/12/03/gunman-hijacks-aid-plane-in-south-sudan-demands-flight-to-chad/

https://www.dailypioneer.com/2025/world/hijacked-aid-plane-rescued.html

https://avbrief.com/samaritans-purse-caravan-hijacked/

https://news.az/news/samaritan-s-purse-plane-hijacked-while-flying-to-south-sudan

Zaptain United (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There has been plenty of WP:ROUTINE news coverage, sure, as would be expected for any aircraft incident – but I don't see any WP:INDEPTH analysis. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well the argument the nominator was making was that there wasn't that much coverage which I was trying to disprove Zaptain United (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, what Blox said, its a hijacking, sure not notable but doesnt happen a lot. Grffffff (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not notable, then it's not notable. The frequency of a specific type of event does not itself determine the notability of individual events. - ZLEA ^TǀC 18:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep for now. Article was nominated after 2 (maybe 3) days after the incident. Within that span, it has received significant coverage internationally. Enough time hasn't passed to deny claim to notability. Let's wait at least for three months to see what kind of coverage it receives. Wikipedia:Too soon to delete —usernamekiran (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zaptain United. Many sources about the hijacking, that were not seen by the nominator. ~2025-31396-09 (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did see them. Most of them are just the same Associated Press article on different news aggregator sites. 11WB (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 ICC Champions Trophy statistics

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

Statistics-only pages in violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Past similar AfDs: [5][6][7] Vestrian24Bio 09:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Cricket. Vestrian24Bio 09:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Svartner (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 2025 Israeli attack in Beirut

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

It was a targeted killing of Haytham Ali Tabatabai. All the content is already included there. WP:REDUNDANT. No need for redirect because this isn't an expected search term. Longhornsg (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Terrorism, Israel, and Lebanon. Longhornsg (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Haytham Ali Tabatabai since short, REDUNDANT, fragmenting, but can be searched. Also by PRESERVE and CHEAP. gidonb (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for the same reasons as above. The article itself is pretty sort, I don't see a reason not to merge it to Haytham Ali Tabatabai. Oakchris1955 (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Conference on Rewriting Techniques and Applications

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

Unreferenced for 19 years. 2 google scholar hits. Marked for notability concerns since 2011. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Logic, Events, Mathematics, and Computing. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving Mongolia

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

WP:TNT, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NLIST. Wars fought by ancient Xianbei tribes bear no relation to "wars involving Mongolia"; neither do battles fought by the Kalmyk Khanate, Ilkhanate, Golden Horde, or the Khoshut Khanate. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Lists, and Mongolia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait so it's by geographically Mongolian like the nations based on modern day Mongolian lands and not by ethnicity which includes nations like Kalmyk Khanate or the Khoshut Khanate, or the Succesor state of Mongol Empire which is Golden Horde and the Ilkhanate? HorseBro the hemionus (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly salvage by restricting to separate lists for the Mongol Empire and its successor states only? Also delete individual battles, raids, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Conference on Service Oriented Computing

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

Declined prod with reason addressed issues of primary sources. The edit did not address this issue. The conference fails GNG and only has 2 google scholar hits. LibStar (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Computing. LibStar (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Non-notable conference. Svartner (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1987 Buenos Aires Grand Prix – 1º Festival Automolistico Internacional de Formula 3

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

No sources establishing notability. -- Beland (talk) 10:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Motorsport, and Argentina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable sports event. Finding some newspaper articles but no lasting coverage to satisfy WP:SPORTSEVENT. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPORTSEVENT is primarily referring to sports leagues which utilise a home-away format and typically have a very-large number of matches (compare 2430 Major League Baseball matches in 2025 to 65 ATP Tour tournaments in 2025). Coverage of an individual Formula Three race other than the Macau Grand Prix is likely to be WP:ROUTINE (with a few exceptions, like the farcical European F3 Championship race at Monza a decade ago), but if there is coverage in newspapers then it sounds plausible (though still fairly improbable) that this event might pass WP:GNG. @Anonrfjwhuikdzz:, do you have links to the newspaper articles in question? HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I erred --- everything I found in newsish sources was apparently for motorcycle or "MotoGP" which seems to be something. It will take someone with more spanish knowledge to find anything in Argentinian news. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be almost entirely unrelated. Thank you for following up on this. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless WP:SIGCOV in independent WP:RS can be found (which would probably need someone who can read Spanish (and possibly Portuguese) to go through various old news archives) then there isn't any evidence of this individual event meeting WP:GNG, and the likelihood of such coverage existing is relatively low given it's a Formula Three race. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Wuchale

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

After searching on on google scholar, I am unconvinced this battle even occurred. A handful of blogs and wikias mention it, with just as much brevity as the page here. Fails WP:PROOF.

(I did remove a sizeable chunk of text prior to putting this here, but that entire section seemed to be a LLM hallucination talking about the 1896 Battle of Adwa against Italy.) Zygmeyer (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Ethiopia. Zygmeyer (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can’t find any reliable independent sources for this battle. However our article Tekle Giyorgis I mentions it and provides a source - Weld Blundell, The Royal chronicle, pp. 287–290. Does anyone have access to this? If we decide this is not verifiable, references to the battle will also need to be removed from List of battles 1601–1800, List of conflicts in Africa and possibly elsewhere. Mccapra (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found a scan of it https://archive.org/details/royalchronicleof00welduoft/page/289/mode/1up, seems to be old enough to be out of copyright. It's a translation of a primary source, and the cited section describes a campaign against the "Wechale men". The decisive battle is listed as occurring on the 5th of Magabit, which roughly matches with the 14th of March listed on the page.

However, I don't think this is enough to build an article off of, as it is purely WP:PRIMARY. Also I don't know if translating the dates out of the Coptic calendar or listing the "Wechale men" as being Oromo would violate WP:OR. I feel like it might, but please tell me if that isn't the case. Zygmeyer (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I agree if that’s all there is then the battle isn’t notable and the article should be deleted. Mccapra (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Americas Regional Round of the Monroe E. Price Media Law Moot Court Competition

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

Could not find any reliable sources independent of the subject. SpragueThomson^talk 21:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SpragueThomson^talk 21:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources. Hard to imagine something with a title this specific is appropriate for an encyclopedia regardless of any sources found. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a WP:SPLIT (whether intentionally done as such or not) of Price Media Law Moot Court Competition, hence the cumbersome article title. I don't think such a title should have any bearing on whether the page is kept or not. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 02:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Organizations, Education, and New York. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 02:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Delete - The nom may have been better served by nominating Price Media Law Moot Court Competition, from which this article (a well-intentioned SIZESPLIT) is dependent on, as that also appears to lack secondary sourcing. This could then have been put up for speedy deleting or done as a batch nomination. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 02:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1986 Indian Air Force Antonov An-32 disappearance

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

The article is not notable WP:Notability because it lacks sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources WP:Reliable sources. Only one source is functional, and the other is dead (404). Therefore, the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for events and should be considered for deletion. Yousuf31 (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:03, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oman-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Antonov An-32#Accidents and incidents which already has a brief description of the accident. Our deletion policy says to first consider alternatives to deletion before nominating an article for deletions. The Rredirection subsection states "A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate." --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Antonov An-32#Accidents and incidents – Per A.B. Svartner (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The additional sourcing posted below gets this one across the mark for notability. nf utvol (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC) Redirect as noted above. Acceptable ATD in this case. Also, as a note to the nominator, just being a stub is absolutely not a valid reason for deletion. nf utvol (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability... Yousuf31 (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... But one of your stated deletion reasons was "because it's a stub" and that is in no way related to its notability. nf utvol (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is sustain coverage of this disappearance after 1986. We can add the sustain coverage to the article. Here are some sources:

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/indian-air-force-aircraft-missing-indian-ocean-9606370/

https://fighterjetsworld.com/air/third-indian-air-force-antonov-an-32-aircraft-disappeared-in-last-33-years/14494/

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/missing-iaf-plane-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-an-32-aircraft-331016-2016-07-24

https://www.livefistdefence.com/the-lost-the-found-a-tale-of-two-indian-antonovs/

https://www.thequint.com/news/india/previous-incidents-of-an-32-goes-missing

https://www.firstpost.com/india/missing-iaf-aircraft-brings-back-memories-of-2016-1986-incidents-when-an-32-wreckage-was-never-found-age-old-fleet-awaits-overhauling-6751171.htm Zaptain United (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the other source in the article was in 2014 so that is a secondary source. There are more secondary sources talking about the disappearance years after 1986 than when it first disappeared. Zaptain United (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian Express article goes into great detail on this disappearance in 2024 despite no investigation ever being conducted on this disappearance or any long-term search. Zaptain United (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I edited it Yousuf31 (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Analysis of sources presented:

Source assessment table
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/indian-air-force-aircraft-missing-indian-ocean-9606370/			✔ Yes
https://fighterjetsworld.com/air/third-indian-air-force-antonov-an-32-aircraft-disappeared-in-last-33-years/14494/	Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368#fighterjetsworld.com.		✘ No
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/missing-iaf-plane-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-an-32-aircraft-331016-2016-07-24		Only briefly mentioned.	✘ No
https://www.livefistdefence.com/the-lost-the-found-a-tale-of-two-indian-antonovs/		Only a short mention.	✘ No
https://www.thequint.com/news/india/previous-incidents-of-an-32-goes-missing#read-more		Short paragraph that doesn’t go into further details other than a retelling of the disappearance.	✘ No
https://www.firstpost.com/india/missing-iaf-aircraft-brings-back-memories-of-2016-1986-incidents-when-an-32-wreckage-was-never-found-age-old-fleet-awaits-overhauling-6751171.htm		Short mention of the disappearance.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

We have one notability-establishing source, but per WP:GNG, we need multiple reliable independent sources that provide significant coverage of the event, and as of yet, there’s only one. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.firstpost.com/india/missing-iaf-aircraft-brings-back-memories-of-2016-1986-incidents-when-an-32-wreckage-was-never-found-age-old-fleet-awaits-overhauling-6751171.html here is the link for firstpost. Zaptain United (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is the link that works. Zaptain United (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the working link, I've amended the assessment. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://web.archive.org/web/20160716045112/http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories3291_MH370_Rekindling_Memories_IAF_AN-32.htm

How about this source? It is used in the article itself. I think this is sustain coverage. Zaptain United (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you check if this source is good? Zaptain United (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source is pretty in-depth and appears to be reliable (and it appears to have been written by Vinod Bhatia). So all in all, there are now two sources that count towards WP:GNG. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Given other sources found. I can add the following 2

* the incident is mentioned in a list here https://thefederal.com/category/states/west/gujarat/gujarat-7-major-air-crashes-ahmedabad-boeing-accident-191620 .

* Also in this book https://www.google.se/books/edition/Without_a_Trace_1970_2016/UBOWDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=1986,+an+Antonov+An-32&pg=PT165&printsec=frontcover Dualpendel (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of those establish notability. Wikipedia prefers reliable and secondary sources with editorial oversight. Yousuf31 (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable incident. Apart from some initial reports and minor mentions, it has ultimately failed to meet WP:LASTING. Orientls (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable as incident. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Antonov An-32#Accidents and incidents per WP:ATD. Fails WP:NEVENT but we can cover it at this other page.4meter4 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't there sustain coverage. We have at least 2 sources that have sustain coverage that are published decades after the disappearance. One of the source authors is written by Vinod Bhatia who is a famous Indian Air Force Officer. How does this article not have sustain coverage when even a famous officer who was awarded the Vir Chakra award wrote about it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160716045112/http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories3291_MH370_Rekindling_Memories_IAF_AN-32.htm

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/indian-air-force-aircraft-missing-indian-ocean-9606370/ Zaptain United (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it has passed the threshold. That said, even if more material were to be found it's better to cover these together per WP:NOPAGE. Editorially we really don't need to cover this in a separate page.4meter4 (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Antonov An-32#Accidents and incidents: as an AtD. No evidence has been presented of reliable-source SIGCOV of this incident; instead we have WP:SPS and unbylined WP:NEWSORGINDIA coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened and relisted following a "redirect" closure and discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 November 22.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Aviation, Oman, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:TNT. It would need a significant improvement to be encyclopedic, even if notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Two WP:GNG-establishing sources exist, fulfilling WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:INDEPTH ([8] [9]). As an expansion is a viable solution, WP:TNT does not apply since the article is not "hopelessly irreparable" (being a stub). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 December 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' to Antonov An-32#Accidents and incidents. If this is notable then this is barely notable, and unfortunately, "military aircraft crashes" is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs expansion and imrpovement, but multiple independent reliable sources does excist about the incident. ~2025-38317-97 (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources are sufficient to establish notability under the WP:GNG, as noted by Aviationwikiflight and others. Appeals to WP:TNT are self-defeating and contrary to existing policies (WP:ATD-E, WP:IMPERFECT, see also WP:TNTTNT). I object to a redirect on the grounds that military aircraft crashes are "run of the mill" (perhaps insinuating that they as a class are?), as not every crash obtains coverage and this one did (ROTM here functions as a runaround of the GNG here)Katzrockso (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Comment for the Administrators: Since @Zaptain United seemingly did not read WP:EDITATAFD by not noting that he moved the article during an AfD other than simply changing the link on the top (which is not sufficient by WP:EDITATAFD), I'll do it for them. Zaptain United moved the page in question from 1986 Indian Air Force An-32 disappearance to 1986 Indian Air Force Antonov An-32 disappearance on 3 December. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...and someone moved it back to the original title. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 07:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Aviationwikiflight. There is now sufficient sourcing to pass GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable accident, fails WP:NEVENT and WP:LASTING — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-38637-73 (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming

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

Unreferenced for 19 years, and 1 google scholar hit. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Computing. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 01:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is nothing to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article is inadequate because it is so brief and unreferenced, but it fails to show the other conferences which are part of this or to which it is linked. ^[1] Because there is a lot of information about these other conferences and about the series of ECOOP conferences^[2] suggest investigate Keep or merge with article on related conference before deletion.Worramlaup21 (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a primary source. LibStar (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- have yet to find any SIGCOV for the conference to be notable, even though seeing it mentioned a lot from searches, a possible ATD is to Redirect to List of computer science conferences#languages and software.where its mentioned.Lorraine Crane (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1941 Croatian First League

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

Unreferenced substub with some stats, the article's prose doesn't even mention what sport it is about (only categories do). This fails WP:V, WP:GNG as well as WP:NOTSTAT _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Croatia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per sources in hr.wiki (includes a book from the local federation). Considering the time period, I believe it is consistent. Svartner (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it.wiki also brings this source [10]. Svartner (talk) 07:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does that source goes beyond reprinting statistics? Can this be expanded beyond a tiny table? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not needed. AkaruiHikari (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Championships from the war era certainly have the most compromised coverage. In my view, a publication from the federation itself and verification by specialized websites that compile tables are what's expected in this case. Svartner (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Svartner (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Croatian Football League. Giant Snowman 20:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is not needed, personally i don't see any problems with keeping this article. AkaruiHikari (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i've added a reference. AkaruiHikari (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Tennessee Titans–Arizona Cardinals game

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

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. While this game was something of an upset and it got a little more coverage than usual due to the conflict between the Cardinals head coach and one of his players, due to an unusual and costly error that resulted in them losing the game, along with the winning touchdown for the Titans being extremely bizzare and was quite fortunate for them, they did not receive enough to be considered "extensive", as the game was moved on from by the media by the next week. This game by itself will most certainly not significantly impact the sport in the long term, either - there is simply no evidence of that. TheInevitables (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, American football, Arizona, and Tennessee. jolielover♥talk 01:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even the slightest hint at a possibility of becoming a historical game. Geschichte (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No lasting coverage to pass WP:SPORTSEVENT/WP:NEVENT. Wikipedia is also WP:NOTEVERYTHING and there is no reason for us to be the catalog for every slightly "interesting" NFL game ever played. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only 'history' this WP:MILL game created was a bit of shuffling in their Tank Bowl standings, neither team is going anywhere this year. Nathannah • 📮 18:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unremarkable regular season game with very little WP:SIGCOV beyond what is routinely available for any other game. Frank Anchor 18:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, the Grammar Police are looking for the perps for misdemeanor overuse of "would". Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rlendog (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Neither team isn't going anywhere this season and this game is already being forgotten about. WikiGiancarloC2 (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE everywhere here. Conyo14 (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really a notable sporting event. TPalkovitz (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rokeya Day

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

Not a notable day/topic. The article Begum Rokeya has the exact line "Bangladesh observes Rokeya Day on 9 December every year to commemorate her works and legacy. On that day, Bangladesh government also confers Begum Rokeya Padak on individual women for their exceptional achievement." in its lead section. This essentially covers the entire Rokeya Day article. The only notable aspect of this topic is the award, but we already have an article on this (Begum Rokeya Padak). So I think deleting or redirecting the article to Begum Rokeya would be the best option. Raihanur (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Bangladesh. Raihanur (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Begum Rokeya#Death and legacy. The day itself has not been shown to be a broad enough topic to justify a stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2030 South Korean presidential election

AfDs for this article:

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

The article just contains stuff like polling (And polls for elections can happen way before election season, sometimes shortly after an election has finished), the and basic facts that are the same at every election such as whether the incumbent is eligible or not, and how the president is elected, and that he/she/they (Or whatever subject pronouns the elected president uses) is elected to serve a five-year term. Nothing on who will be running, the issues that are expected to be defining factors in the decisions of the voters. It is too soon. A good ATD would be draftify, but I am also concerned about the potential lack of encyclopaedic value from sources to add within a 6 month frame, that this could end up being deleted via G13. Anyways, what should be done with this article? Regardless, I firmly believe it is too soon for a stand alone article. Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and South Korea. Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't even see the discussion only 12 days prior. I didn't bother checking, and it honestly didn't even occur to me in the case I just assumed that this would be a first nomination, and that if there was a prior one, it would have been deleted. Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nom, can be undeleted if deleted per G13. Lee Jae Myung uses he/him pronouns. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LaundryPizza03 In regards to pronouns, I ment whoever is elected. Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to Opinion polling for the next South Korean presidential election, given that its almost entirely opinion polling. This is the format used for almost every single other country (See: UK, Germany, Australia, Poland, Japan etc.) aesurias (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the format used; in all the cases you mention, there is an article on the election (i.e. Next United Kingdom general election, Next German federal election, Next Australian federal election, Next Polish parliamentary election, Next Japanese general election), not just one on the opinion polls. Number 5 7 19:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure, but all of those are expected to be held 2026-2029. I think we should just hold off until next year when there will be more information for a standalone article aesurias (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The UK article was created around a month after the 2024 election, so a similar period in advance that this South Korean one is for. The other ones have shorter terms, but in most cases were created shortly after the previous election. Number 5 7 23:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty good argument. aesurias (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments in the AfD that closed as 'keep' less than two weeks ago (i.e. it's long established that articles on future elections are fine as long as there is information specific to the election in question, such as opinion polls). Number 5 7 19:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Number 57. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 20:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TBD 2040

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

I'm sure there are plenty of "TBD 2040" events that we won't know until we get close enough to 2040. Georgia guy (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sports. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 16:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL, we know nothing about events that will happen in 2040.
History6042😊 (Contact me) 18:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify per WP:TOOSOON and no sources. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 16:51, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Seems like there should be some speedy deletion criteria for pages like this. When someone comes back to actually add a page for the 2040 olympics I'm guessing they're not going to look for "TBD 2040" Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is literally no topic that could have this article title that doesn't fail WP:BALL and/or WP:TOOSOON. The minimal content currently at this title would always be most properly at an article titled 2040 Summer Olympics when the time comes (articles on Olympics are not titled on Wikipedia with their host cities, if that was what the creator was thinking of)… and the time still hasn't come. I don't think this falls under any speedy criteria (even if in a perfect world there should be a criterion for things like this), but I can see this not needing the full week either. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that even if this article was titled properly (and based on how the creator linked it from Bids for the 2036 Summer Olympics, this was definitely intended to only ever be an Olympic article from the start), this is not be the first nomination for the 2040 Olympics (and that first nomination was all the way in 2006!). Much has changed about Wikipedia and its inclusion standards in 19 years… but the invalid nature of a 2040 Summer Olympics article has not, at least for a few more years. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I mean come on. Even as an Olympics article this is way too soon. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:TOOSOON. Disanjh (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is WP:TOOSOON. 15 years away.
Delete, ridiculous. Geschichte (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too soon. Still fifteen years and three Summer Olympics between now and the 2040 Games. It is likely that some of the participants in these games have not even been born yet. The only information available is speculation about which countries may or may not submit a bid to host. Draft:Bids for the 2040 Summer Olympics currently exists and is a good place to document this speculation outside of mainspace, but there probably won't be any movement regarding even the bids to host until after the 2028 Games at the earliest. Frank Anchor 15:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

INMerge Innovation Summit

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

Previously salted as InMerge Innovation Summit * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Azerbaijan. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 18:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event is the largest and well-established in the region. There are many Azerbaijani sources that Western media may not know or that may not be accepted in the English Wikipedia. However, the event has many international participants and spin-offs in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. An Azerbaijani language version can be found here and some of the local sources added to the English version: https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/InMerge_%C4%B0nnovasiya_Sammiti --AbeerT (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very telling that so many socks have attempted to disrupt this AfD. There's clearly some ulterior motive here, which only makes the case for deletion this article created in wilful contempt of proper processes stronger. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Go Championship

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

Completely unreferenced. Not clear this passes WP:NEVENT/WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment w:zh:全国围棋个人赛 isn't much better in terms of sourcing, but it does have some examples of news coverage. "Chinese Go Championship" doesn't seem to be the usual English name for the 1957-to-present contest being described here (although it is used for a different contest); the literal translation National Go Individual (Competition) appears more common. Adam Sampson (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It certainly would have impacted my BEFORE search. I'll try hunting again under the correct name.4meter4 (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Results of the 2025 competition. In 2024, there was a controversy related to AI cheating. Announcement for the 2007 tournament. This archive link from the official website allows verify winners from 2005 to 2007. In 2025, the winner got ¥80,000, which is a bit more than $10,000. So, the claim of the $300 prize fund in the article is incorrect. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelob2678: Under what policy are you basing your keep vote? The first source is from Tencent QQ which is not a reliable publication. The second source from Sina Corporation seems fine. The third source is a press release and is not independent. And the last source is the organization's website which is also not independent. How does this pass WP:ORGCRIT (because this is an organization as well as a competition) or WP:EVENTCRIT? This is not demonstrating coverage that passes WP:SIGCOV requirements for organizations, events, or even the general notability guidelines. We need multiple independent sources with in-depth coverage.4meter4 (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tencent QQ is realiable, we have WP:RSCONTEXT. The third source is not press release. This competition should pass WP:GNG. In general, national level competition in a country with more than one billion people are notable.

For instance, the third source says The history of the Individual Championship can be traced back to 1957, spanning 50 years to date. Although it was interrupted for various reasons, and its current visibility is not as high as the Tianyuan or Mingren competitions, it is nonetheless China's longest-running Go tournament. The champions from the 50 years of the Individual Championship are displayed in the lobby of the host hotel in Dezhou. From Gu Tixing to Wang Xi, the Individual Championship has witnessed virtually the entire history of Go in the New China. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a query on Tencent QQ at the reliable sources noticeboard. Based on our description of the source at the Tencent QQ wikipedia article it appears that the website is a blog hosting platform that would be subject to WP:BLOG/WP:SELFPUBLISHED. It would therefor be unreliable. We'll see what editors have to say there. Perhaps I'm missing some sort of editorial oversight? I'll take your word on the other source. Usually I think of "announcement" as a press release, but in fact it wasn't an announcement but coverage of the opening day of the competition with some historical coverage of the event as a whole. That seems fine as well. That would be two sources that are usable. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That particular piece is a republication from foxwq, which, as I understand, is a Chinese site dedicated to Go[11]. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major incidents do get reporting in English Chinese media. [12][13] Without a proper WP:BEFORE search in Chinese-language sources, it's hard to say that WP:NEXIST isn't met. Not a policy-based reason, but this would be like the Chinese Wikipedia deleting the US Chess Championship because it doesn't get coverage in Chinese-language sources. Go/Weiqi is very popular there. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 08:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Choegowi

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT/WP:NEVENT.4meter4 (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep- though currently lacks sources, a check into the JP and Korean Wiki shows it being more fleshed out, albeit interestingly still lacking in sources. If this is unacceptable due to sourcing issues , which I suspect may have more offline native language sources, an ATD would be a redirect to List of professional Go tournaments#South Korea #defunct tournaments where its mentioned.Lorraine Crane (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On what policy are you basing a keep? You've just pointed out lack of sources issues which fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NSPORT and WPNEVENT and WP:ORG. We don't just keep based on guesswork. We actually need evidence of coverage.4meter4 (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2007 ANAPROF Clausura

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

Tagged as unreferenced since 2009. Not clear the event passes WP:NEVENT, WP:GNG, or WP:NSPORT.4meter4 (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, and Panama. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:21, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Liga Panameña de Fútbol until sources are found. Giant Snowman 18:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Liga Panameña de Fútbol, is an agreeable ATD, currently lacks enough SIGCOV to support standalone notability.Lorraine Crane (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Come on, everyone, actually do a BEFORE search. This season was one of the two seasons of the top flight of Panamanian football in 2007. It's just poorly sourced at the moment, but they clearly exist: [14] [15] [16] [17] SportingFlyer T·C 12:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per SportingFlyer sources. Svartner (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2007 ANAPROF Apertura

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

Unreferenced since 2009. Not clear if this passes WP:NSPORT, WP:NEVENT, or WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, and Panama. jolielover♥talk 05:33, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Liga Panameña de Fútbol until sources are found. Giant Snowman 18:21, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments in 2007 ANAPROF Clausura. This was the top flight of Panamanian football for this season and there are sources available as there would be for the Clausura. Please do a better BEFORE search before nominating these. SportingFlyer T·C 12:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES isn't a valid argument. Unsourced content also can't hang around forever. We are approaching 19 years (created in 2007) of no verified content. Time to delete this or redirect the page per a suitable WP:ATD. WP:BURDEN is a thing here as unsourced pages can under policy be blanked no matter how much WP:NEXIST is out there (which so far nobody has established; name the sources with publication information or give urls and preferably take the time to verify at least one sentence of text).4meter4 (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make a MUSTBESOURCES argument, I found sources for the Clausura season in the other AfD. The exact same sources will exist for Apertura. SportingFlyer T·C 18:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ełk riots

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

Just because something was covered in media back then doesn't mean it's notable enough to have it's own article. There were multiple hate crimes in Poland but just like many other crimes not all of them deserve to have their own Wikipedia article. Nowadays it doesn't seem too significant.(WP:NTEMP) Nejvis (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Events, and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination contradicts itself citing NTEMP: it was notable back then, and likely still is. I see quite a few mentions of the incident in English acadeimic sources: [18]. The article itself cites two Polish academic articles about it, by Łyszczarz. It's a minor but notable incident. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nominator even states that it is received plenty of coverage back then, per notability. Plenty of good sourcing. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Tarco Air Antonov An-24 crash

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT:

Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". The sources in article consist of contemporary news coverage and a database, none of which are secondary. The same goes with the sources provided in the previous AfD which I analyzed here.

There is no sustained continued coverage of the accident, and there are no retrospective sources that provide significant/in-depth coverage of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated.

WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks per the above.

Possible alternatives to deletion include merging/redirecting this article to either List of accidents and incidents involving the Antonov An-24#2010s or Tarco Aviation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Sudan. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing has changed since the last AFD that makes this not notable. Your just saying the same kind of stuff from the last AFD. I am voting keep based on the comments of @Nfutvol and @SportingFlyer from the first one. Zaptain United (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also isn't it a little too soon to nominate this again? I thought you had to wait at least a year? Zaptain United (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure I understand your comment. What exactly is meant to change for one to bring this at AfD? There's nothing against restating one's position (not that all of what I said is the same). And six months is the recommended time, not one year. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay 6 months is the recommended time. I understand. But, I notice you tried to do a deletion review, but most of the editors voted to not relist the AFD. I don't get the point of doing this again when not only the previous AFD decided to keep the article, but also the deletion review where more experienced and familiar editors endorsed the closer. Zaptain United (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and others also shared the same opinion as me. The AfD was closed nine months ago, so I don't see a problem with attempting another discussion. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yes I agree with Zaptain United. ~2025-35574-32 (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nothing has changed since the last AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 12:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of accidents and incidents involving the Antonov An-24#2010s: the previous AfD close wasn't exactly a resounding consensus, noting some weak arguments. Deletion review is not material here: DRV serves only to determine whether the closure was "reasonable", not to rehash the deletion discussion per se. This was a routine accident covered by WP:EVENTCRIT#4, with no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond the initial news cycle. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is nothing procedurally wrong with this AfD. Please focus on policy based reasons about the article's notability or lack there of rather than whether the discussion should exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To the list of accidents involving AN-24 as suggested by Rosbif. This accident only had routine event coverage. I am not finding coverage beyond the initial news cycle in November 2010 + some reports when safety analysis was released. Given the lack of continued coverage or significant changes to government policies based on this accident, it should be deleted/redirected per WP:EVENTCRIT#4. An entry in the appropriate list is more than enough for this crash.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are some additional sources

Sudanese minister survives plane crash | News | Al Jazeera Net

Monitoring: Sudanese plane crashes in the last 15 years

رصد : أحداث سودانية هامة (70) وقعت في شهر ديسمبر... - صحيفة الراكوبة Zaptain United (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1: "December 2010 also saw another plane crash while attempting to land in Zalingei, West Darfur, resulting in the death of one woman and the survival of most of the passengers, who sustained minor injuries."

2: "In December 2010, a civilian plane crashed while attempting to land in Zalingei, West Darfur, killing one woman. The other passengers sustained minor injuries."

3: "December 2010: A civilian aircraft crashed while attempting to land in Zalingei, West Darfur, killing one woman. The remaining passengers survived with minor injuries."

This is the total extent of the coverage in the three sources provided. These are just passing mentions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The relisting comment assumes this needs to be a completely new discussion, but all of the same arguments from the last, well-attended AfD still apply. SportingFlyer T·C 22:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I think would be helpful to the eventual closer @SportingFlyer is why you think nothing has changed/consensus hasn't. I agree/nothing has changed aren't super helpful as a standalone Star Mississippi 03:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an event from 2010 which has already established notability through the sources in the article and was referenced multiple times after the event happened. Civilian passenger flights with fatalities are not WP:ROUTINE. There are no new sources or information, this is just trying to get another bite at the apple to delete an article for reasons that honestly baffle me. SportingFlyer T·C 10:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This is an event from 2010 which has already established notability through the sources in the article and was referenced multiple times after the event happened." – Contemporary coverage, passing mentions, the final report, and databases don't establish notability.

"Civilian passenger flights with fatalities are not WP:ROUTINE." – This varies, but they are routine if there are no sources to establish notability, such as is the case here. Not every fatal commercial plane crash is notable.

"There are no new sources or information..." – Isn't this an argument for deletion? If there are no new sources, wouldn't this mean that the accident isn't notable?

"...this is just trying to get another bite at the apple to delete an article for reasons that honestly baffle me." Consensus can change. There's nothing against reattempting a deletion discussion. WP:6MONTHS recommends against renominating an article for deletion until at least six months have passed. The last AfD closed on 20 February, meaning that nine months had already passed at the time of the nomination. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop twisting my words. The last AfD was at the start of this year. It closed as a keep because the crash was covered worldwide, and because the crash continues to be mentioned in aviation lists. The mere fact that there has been little to no coverage of a plane crash that happened 15 years ago over the last nine months in a part of the world where coverage may not be consistent - especially due to the civil strife occurring there - is not suddenly a reason to delete this article. This is a waste of the community's time. SportingFlyer T·C 12:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I twist your words? If I did do so, it wasn't my intention.

"The mere fact that there has been little to no coverage of a plane crash that happened 15 years ago over the last nine months in a part of the world where coverage may not be consistent - especially due to the civil strife occurring there - is not suddenly a reason to delete this article." I don't particularly give much attention to where a plane crash occurred when trying to establish notability other than looking for sources in relevant languages. We have WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT for a reason, none of which state that "X countries" get a special pass regarding notability. Whether a plane crash occurred in Sudan, Canada, Japan, etc... if there are no sources that establish notability, well then the crash simply isn't notable. This is the reason to delete article on events like this. Passing mentions in listings of plane crashes do not establish notability (hence why WP:SIGCOV/WP:INDEPTH exist). If you feel that this discussion is a waste of community time, there is no obligation to participate in this discussion. In summary, no good coverage = not notable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"There are no new sources or information" is not an argument for deletion. There are lots of sources available - there was worldwide coverage of the crash, there was coverage of the investigation, and it continues to be mentioned in lists of crashed passenger flights in Sudan. And yes, BIAS does matter - this would not even be at AfD if it had happened in the USA. SportingFlyer T·C 14:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is an argument for deletion. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE exists for a reason.

Contemporary (worldwide) coverage + contemporary coverage of investigation + passing mentions ≠ notability.

Sources that provide continued significant/in-depth coverage of the accident = notability

This crash didn't happen in the US. Off-topic, but let's say that a similar crash had happened in the US with the same amount of coverage that this accident received. I doubt for a single moment this would even survive AfD. Bias does not exempt a topic from meeting notability guidelines. It's something to take into consideration, but it's not something that should be used to justify keeping non-notable articles without the necessary sourcing to establish notability. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Masters League

AfDs for this article:

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

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources other than the WP:ROUTINE coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 07:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Cricket. Vestrian24Bio 07:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Keep A simple perusal of the sourcing for this article, it is clear that it easily passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. It has multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject, that are directly about the topic with no need for original research. This is the second time this editor has proposed this article for deletion. I don't know if there are novel arguments to be heard, but in the previous discussion, the proposer argued that the sourcing was WP:ROUTINE because much of the sourcing was Indian - which isn't a valid argument. There was also a certain amount of misrepresentation of the content of sources which I hope we won't see again. OsFish (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE sources because of [...]Planned coverage of scheduled events[...], not because they're Indian websites. Vestrian24Bio 11:06, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re welcome to change your reasoning. However given that several of the sources are in-depth coverage after the event, and are not announcements of scheduled games or mere score reports, WP:ROUTINE simply does not apply. I believe this was also explained in the previous discussion. I understand based on previous comments that you may have frustration that this tournament did gain coverage despite you seeing the whole thing as a marketing ploy, but that’s not relevant to whether it did actually get direct, in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Which it did. Lots of developments in sports are about money. That doesn’t mean we don’t cover them.OsFish (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 09:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anifail Aneglur Iawn, AssociateAffiliate, Bs1jac, Fade258, Godknowme1, Goodknowme, Joseph2302, Kumarpramit, MNWiki845, PEditorS10, Pkr206, Servite et contribuere, and Sush150: your opinions on this event... Vestrian24Bio 10:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the criterion for this list of people? It looks very much like WP:CANVASSING. Very few of those accounts have ever edited the article. You also didn't have the courtesy to notify me of this AfD or other major contributors. OsFish (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that the three people who have responded thus far have responded with the exact same response. This looks very much like canvassing. OsFish (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OsFish. I honestly tell you that, I got ping but I didn't get forced to vote here and not canvassing. I found no hits on JSTOR and scholar and only found some information here which is not sufficient for its standalone article. Fade258 (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don’t rely typically rely on JSTOR and scholar as the stand-or-fall notability criterion for articles about sporting events. Focussed multiple reliable independent news coverage suffices. And the article clearly has that - far more than your one hit. It appears you didn’t check the sourcing for the article as it currently stands before !voting, which is of some concern when canvassing may be an issue.OsFish (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OsFish the people pinged are this user's list of "most active WikiProject Cricket" members, as people ping us for quite a few things that lack participation. That being said, for AFDs it's probably better to post at WT:CRIC rather than ping people (so people cannot be accused of canvassing). Therefore, I don't personally believe it is an attempt to canvass, but rather to generate some more thoughts (as 2 people disagreeing and nobody else participating will just lead to a no consensus outcome- trying to get a consensus is better than this). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems rather odd that of the people pinged who then all !voted with the same very specific idea, none cited policy, and at least one didn't appear to even have looked at the article or the discussion here before !voting. It's also only fair to be concerned given the tendentious behaviour of the nominator at the last nomination. The issue at hand is notability, and as far as I can see, the topic clearly gets enough non-routine direct devoted coverage in multiple reliable sources - well over a dozen are cited here. I would like the conversation here to make sense in terms of policy. I think that's a reasonable position to hold. OsFish (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I have put up a comment at WP:CRIC as you suggested inviting more participants. OsFish (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To List of Twenty20 cricket competitions #Multi-national competitions where this is mentioned at target as an alternative to deletion. Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To List of Twenty20 cricket competitions #Multi-national competitions where this is mentioned at target as an alternative to deletion.Godknowme1 (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Twenty20 cricket competitions #Multi-national competitions as per viable WP:ATD. Fade258 (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 HAL Tejas Dubai Airshow crash

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

Military jets frequently crash, particularly when performing aerobatics. Precedent says that not every crash deserves a page. WP:NOTNEWS applies and its WP:TOOSOON to know if this will have any lasting impact. Currently it warrants a para on the HAL Tejas page and a short para on the Dubai Airshow page Mztourist (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:48, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to clarify this vote comes with an inherent support for redirecting to the Dubai Airshow article and adding its content there + to the HAL Tejas article. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article should never be deleted. ~2025-36388-95 (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with HAL Tejas per nom? First time doing this, but this might be a suitable solution. The Phase Master 03:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to Dubai Airshow. While an aircraft crash is saddening to hear, it is not as notable compared to some other accidents. The pilot also having an article is also not necessary. TheSwagger13 (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for events WP:EVENT and is not merely routine news. and Several has standalone coverage. This crash is notable beyond routine news!!!! . It was the first fatal accident in the Tejas programme, happened at a major international airshow ( Dubai Airshow) , and also received significant coverage from multiple global sources. so there is clear precedent. The event has long-term relevance to the aircraft’s history and fits WP:EVENT and WP:LASTING. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unsosctent (talk • contribs) 03:25, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here indicates this is anything but a routine military crash. Zaptain United (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dubai Airshow#2025. Better redirect target than the type page, as the fact that it was a crash at an airshow seems to be the more relevant aspect. There's a possibility that there will be enough coverage in the future for a standalone article, but it's not there yet. nf utvol (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it should be kept to remember the incident and honour the legacy of the pilot.--Junior Jumper (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTMEMORIAL jolielover♥talk 09:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this incident killed the pilot and it's one of military crashes in November 2025. Also it is listed as a airshow disaster, and lastly the crash was the first fatal crash in Al Maktoum International Airport and Dubai Airshow, so it should be kept and respect to the pilot who tried everything. Jahndah (Talk) 11:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it should be kept and respect to the pilot who tried everything

As stated above, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Most of the reasons you give are great reasons for it to be noted at other articles, not for it to have an article of its own. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dubai Airshow per Nfutvol. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 13:41, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wide coverage. ArionStar (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about this makes it not an ordinary military jet crash? How did you know the coverage is not just temporary? Zaptain United (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dubai Airshow per Nfutvol and Minorax. As devastating as the incident is, I don't think it's warranted to have it's own article just for one death which is the pilot. A redirect to the Dubai Airshow is enough to give info about this incident there without either saying it's not important what's so ever to be mentioned but also not important enough to warrant it's very own individual article. Nintenga (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dubai Airshow per Nfutvol and Nintenga. Bongan^® →TalkToMe← 18:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with NOTNEWS, however every aviation accident that makes the headlines has a Wikipedia article created not long after. I have said this before but both the article and this AfD are TOOSOON. The accident has significant coverage and will likely continue to, being the first fatal crash at this airshow. (I am aware of WP:CRYSTAL, however I would be surprised if the coverage suddenly stopped.) 11WB (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I am advocating for a redirect here. If a body of SIGCOV develops in the wake of the event, it's easily reconstituted as a standalone article through a reversion to the previous edition with the addition of any new sources. nf utvol (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Too soon to delete as there is many reliable in-depth coverage. ~2025-35574-32 (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dubai Airshow#2025 as an alternative to deletion per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". All of the coverage that currently exists is not secondary as they don't contain analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself and are narrative, and coverage of this crash has mostly subsided. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Crashes at air shows are pretty routine (see List of air show accidents and incidents in the 21st century), and there isn't much that would give this crash "additional enduring significance." Articles on crashes like this can always be recreated in the future should something change, but for now, the coverage does not establish the event's notability. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dubai Airshow#2025, WP:NOTNEWS I believe the incident is not big enough to require a separate article, the event also does not have any long term effects. Xoocit (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hal Tejas#Accidents and incidents (my preference) or Dubai Airshow#2025 as an ATD. Coverage beyond the initial news cycle seems highly unlikely. WP:USUAL applies: the article can always be recreated if other factors of significance subsequently come to light, or if sustained coverage in secondary sources does occur. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The US team cancelled it's final show and the Russian team did a Missing Man manoeuvre in tribute. It's a significant event now KanhaKanhaiya (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dubai Airshow#2025. None of the arguments made are strong enough to warrant an exclusive article. Hate to break it, but people die every day in plane crashes, are the Cessna 172s that crash notable? Regarding news coverage, almost every plane crash in history makes news, doesn't mean they're all notable. Also, regarding the cancellation Missing Man, that doesn't mean it's notable at all. Ceremonies/funerals occur for most crashes. Doesn't mean notability. I'm seeing no good arguments for keeping right now, other than WP:ILIKEIT. relton66 (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MEMORIAL. Does it contribute to this project knowing where his relatives where at the time of the crash? Borgenland (talk) 11:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A week on, the accident is still receiving coverage from reliable news outlets:

Economic Times

The Jerusalem Post

11WB (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Not a major event. Grimforge (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dubai Airshow#2025. Not notable enough for a standalone article, but geeze, they resumed the airshow hours after the crash?!? Talk about disrespect for the pilot. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with NOTNEWS,The accident has significant coverage and will likely continue to, being the first fatal crash at this airshow. agreeing with user:11WB Bech07 (talk)
Bech07 (talk) 09:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dubai Airshow#2025. Military aircraft crashes are, sadly, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, even at an airshow; there would have to be something exceptional to establish seperate notability, and there doesn't seem to be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEVENT — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-38637-73 (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information

AfDs for this article:

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

In 16 years of article existence the sole source is primary. Nothing in google news, 1 hit in gscholar. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Events. LibStar (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not 100% sure yet if sufficient sources exist to meet WP:GNG, but it doesn't seem like a proper WP:BEFORE was done here. I'm actually seeing 9,270 results on Google Scholar and a quick Google search turns up this and this and this and more. Botterweg (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Education, and Mathematics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Redirecting and merging to the Association for Logic, Language and Information would be a very sensible alternative to deletion here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Association for Logic, Language and Information per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1989 Hurricane Hunters NOAA 42 incident

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NEVENT. The only significant coverage is from the episode of Air Crash Investigation (ironic, since there was no crash); everything else is either passing mentions, primary, or non-independent (by NOAA or Jeff Masters of Weather Underground who was on the flight). I attempted to call for more sources but was promptly reverted with no further attempt to show independent secondary sourcing. I note that this was previously the site of an edit war involving many parties between redirecting to Hurricane Hugo or not. I believe it is time for the community to formally decide if a standalone article is merited for this event. A basic before search did not identify anything providing significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and United States of America. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I don't see why the section, Lockheed WP-3D Orion § Accidents and incidents, can't be expanded to include more detail of this event, or/and redirect it to Hurricane Hugo. BAABNRRBBORB1 (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. The edit war was over putting this in Hurricane Hugo, but your idea seems like a much better option. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Aviation, and Barbados. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Lockheed WP-3D Orion § Accidents and incidents. Not enough independent significant coverage, this was a relatively minor incident anyway that would easily be covered in the suggested merge target. As an aside, I don't know why that user reverted your tag...it shouldn't have been removed without further discussion. nf utvol (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this not enough sustain secondary coverage?

https://eos.org/articles/the-wildest-ride-on-a-hurricane-hunter-aircraft Zaptain United (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here is independent sustain coverage and it got a ACI episode despite it being an obscure incident.
6 of the Most Harrowing Flights in Hurricane Hunter History | The Weather Channel

The Wildest Ride on a Hurricane Hunter Aircraft - Eos Zaptain United (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you consider adding or at least identifying the second source when I initially tagged the article for notability? If you'd done that instead of just blindly reverting, we might not be at AfD right now. The first source is only a few short paragraphs and I don't think it meets SIGCOV. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure your supposed to do a Wikipedia:BEFORE when you are considering a AFD nomination. Zaptain United (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure you would have seen I did do a BEFORE search if you actually read my nomination. That doesn't mean I searched exhaustively for every possible source of coverage anywhere on the entire internet. You're ignoring my point that, since you knew about this source, you could easily have added it when I first tagged the article. When I did a quick search for references as part of NPP just prior to placing the tag, I did not find that reference. If you had added it to the article instead of just reverting and saying "it's notable trust me" things might have been different. In fact, I prefer when that happens because then I can mark the article as reviewed and don't need to bother with AfD. I know you wanted a snarky one liner, but it's a little more complicated than that. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you don't want to link to the redirect with "&redirect=no" in the url. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well look, I first reverted your edit because I took a glance at the sources and thought they show enough sustain coverage to be a article. I didn't think I needed to link anything because I thought the sources were good enough in the article. It wasn't until this AFD started, that I actually began searching for sources. Zaptain United (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Redirect, it was a small incident which would fit nicely under Lockheed WP-3D Orion § Accidents and incidents. BAABNRRBBORB1 (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lockheed WP-3D Orion#Accidents and incidents. Sometimes engine fires happen. One happened. Suitable remedial action was taken and the aircraft landed safely. I would not object to this being a sub-section of Hurricane Hugo and redirecing there either, but currently Hugo's article makes no mention whatsoever of this incident. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lockheed WP-3D Orion#Accidents and incidents; there's some sourcing, but it's minimal and not really enough to support a standalone page on the subject. I have no objection if somebody wants to expand the content at Hurricane Hugo and redirect this there, though. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 20:53, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep — Secondary reliable coverage of the incident exists and it additionally has been used as a detailed case study. The amount of reliable sources on the incident justifies its existence as a separate article. A consensus (admittedly weak based on silence) was made to create this article on the Hurricane Hugo talk page based off of length of the main article and existence of sources for this incident. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two other sources that mention the flight signficiantly: 1, 2 RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 17:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Note that this is the event's second nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NOAA Flight 42 for more information. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as secondary sources exist about the incident. However, expansion would be appriciated. ~2025-31396-09 (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is enough WP:SUSTAINED WP:SIGCOV in the sources identified by Zaptain United to meet WP:GNG.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Note that if this is kept, it should be moved to NOAA Flight 42 as is the standard for aviation accident/incident articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
wait is that really the flight number. Does NOAA really refer to their planes with a flight number. The sources I see refer to it as just NOAA 42. Zaptain United (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. "42" is the aircraft number. Struck mny comment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 10:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flying V Fire

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

Non-notable fire with no WP:LASTING impact and no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. The article states there were no evacuations and no structures were threatened, leading to the article failing WP:WILDFIRE-NOTE. A merge was originally proposed, but one other editor believed the fire would not meet criteria to be merged into the list in the target article. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 02:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- though the current sourcing and even additional searches show lack of SIGCOV , casual searching shows this area being featured commonly for the fire from multiple sources, like 55 and 22, but seems another fire in same location.Lorraine Crane (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Weather has been notified of this discussion. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 19:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not establish notability. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. ~2025-37325-51 (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacking continued coverage to establish notability. Relatively small wildfire by modern standards so didn't get much long-term/national coverage. Would be fine with redirect to an appropriate list (e.g. list of arizona wildfires) as an alternate to deletion. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An ATD would not work here because it doesn’t fit the criteria at the target article. ~2025-37325-51 (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed deletions

^ "European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP". dblp: computer science bibliography. Schloss Dagstuhl. Retrieved 1 December 2025.
^ "ECOOP". ECOOP conference series. ECOOP. Retrieved 1 December 2025.

[1] "European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP". dblp: computer science bibliography. Schloss Dagstuhl. Retrieved 1 December 2025.

[2] "ECOOP". ECOOP conference series. ECOOP. Retrieved 1 December 2025.

[1]

[2]