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[edit]

2016 Hampton, Virginia, mayoral election[edit]

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

Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG for lacking significant coverage. Wikipedia is not a political database. -1ctinus📝🗨 16:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IGN Convention[edit]

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

Fails WP:NEVENTS, only lists 10 sources, half of them are YouTube. The notability tag was put in 10 years ago, no fix till now. MK at your service. 11:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Comics and animation, Events, and Middle East. MK at your service. 11:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to IGN#IGN Con - plausible search term, and has the sourcing for a mention, but there's no need for a split with such a short (and sloppy) article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Sergecross. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll[edit]

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

This whole article is one long mess, which if you look at the talk page has been very contentious for years. It's heavily biased in many ways and doesn't appear to have any clear rules regarding what is actually included. It describes itself as a list of events with a "measurable drop in human population" yet also contains many events with as few as 40 deaths, and repeats itself at multiple points, such as listing "Various Fascist/Marxist leaders" as distinct events along with each major leader as a unique event. All in all this article is unnecessary, as it contains nothing that is not duplicated on other better articles such as List of wars by death toll. I fully believe WP:TNT applies here. CoconutOctopus talk 13:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It is entirely WP:SYNTH, and redundant to such lists as List of wars by death toll that provide more detail than you can get from two numbers and their geometric mean (which is not properly justified by what I can acess from Ref. ^[1]). The list also improperly adds figures with varying precision as if they were exact. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Agree with previous justification. Figures are arbitrary and calculations are via unvalidated means for the presentation of scholarly data. "Measurable drop" is vague. Any drop is measurable. Greyspeir (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Pinto, Carla M. A.; Lopes, A. Mendes; Machado, J. A. Tenreiro (2014). "Casualties Distribution in Human and Natural Hazards". In Ferreira, Nuno Miguel Fonseca; Machado, José António Tenreiro (eds.). Mathematical Methods in Engineering. Springer Netherlands. pp. 173–180. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7183-3_16. ISBN 978-94-007-7182-6.

If this AfD closes as delete, can the talk page and its subpages be preserved at this AfD's talk page? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Jay Slater[edit]

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

This seems like a prime example of NOTNEWS to me; there is no indication that this is an event that rises to encyclopedic notability, and the history is replete with the removal of excessive tabloid-style detail and suggestion. Pinging the three editors that weighed in at WP:BLPN: notwally, Bon courage, DeCausa. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reason you've given: WP:NOTNEWS and WP:1E. There has been a decent amount of news coverage in local weeks but he's now been confirmed as having died via misadventure that's likely to drop off very quickly now and it's not even WP:VICTIM. Fragglet (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drmies and Fragglet. A classic news aggregator piece unsuitable for an encyclopedia. I fear that this is shouting in the wind - we have too many articles like this so I'll be very surprised if Delete succeeds. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS exists but the multiple other articles of this standard lowers the subliminal threshold. DeCausa (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just passing grief porn of no lasting encyclopedic worth. No knowledge to share here, no decent analytical sourcing and Wikipedia is (or should be) WP:NOTNEWS. Bon courage (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wrong wrong wrong 78.145.76.106 (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: isn't this article similar to that of Death of Nicola Bulley?... iirc, that was also nominated to be deleted?, but was kept... – 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 L1amw90 (🗣️ talk to me • ✍️ contribs) 20:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- User:L1amw90, there seems to be a lot more content in that article than in this one, particularly content pointing to a greater influence, for instance. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - That article contains a substantial amount of information about the police investigation and subsequent investigations into possible police misconduct during the case. Is there any indication that this situation has broader signficance beyond news coverage of a missing person who had accidentally died? – notwally (talk) 03:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Drmies and Fragglet. What is the encyclopedic importance or enduring notability of this article subject? To document a flash of news coverage surrounding one person's death? Almost all of the article seems like trivial details. We already ignore WP:NOTNEWS too much when it comes to news reports on crimes, and I don't think it is wise to extend that to accidental deaths as well. – notwally (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2024
Keep and not just because I started the original article, Disappearance of Jay Slater, but because I agree with L1amw90. There are many articles similar to this one which are still on Wikipedia. CitationIsNeeded (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- CitationIsNeeded, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many articles like this on Wikipedia such as, Death of Nicola Bulley which was going to be deleted however was kept even though its in the same boat as this article as not having "encyclopedic notability", also why delete the article just because the search is over? If thats the case then that means many other missing persons pages should be deleted aswell due to that reason, and I can agree with you that tabloid journalists have milked the story and most likely in 2 weeks will be posting articles along the lines of "Jay Slater's mother uses gofundme money on booze!", ok i sidetracked a bit TLDR: Keep because there are many other articles similar to this that went thru nomination for deletion but are still up. User:IPhoneRoots 11:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep an article, especially an accidental fatal fall. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would lean towards Keep as the coverage of this disappearance, death and the public reaction to it has been extensive to the point where it now feels like its entered the cultural lexicon. If it turns out coverage is not WP:NSUSTAINED then it may be delete-worthy in the future but I expect it will be the type of case that gets referred back to and compared to a lot. Orange sticker (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is very similar to the Death of Nicola Bulley. And his death is trending all around social media. Azarctic (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That other article is substantially about the investigation into police misconduct. Is there anything similar for the article subject here that involves details beyond merely the accidental death of a person? I do not see anything in the article in its current state to suggest that is the case. – notwally (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yup, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I've experienced both stories from a UK media perspective. At the end of the day, it's just a sad case of someone having an accident in the mountains and the difficulties of finding them therein. Rightfully a media story at the time, at least at this time, there's no long lasting impact or public story, or anything extraordinary about it. Negatives outweigh the positives. Delete. RIP Jay. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This was a huge case that went on national news every day until the case was resolved. Nicola Bulley, Madeline Mcann articles are still up. Makes zero sense to delete this in my opinion. R.I.P Jay Slater. Jattlife121 (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although "huge" and appearing "every day" in the news (at least in reliable sources) may be questionable hyperbole there's no denying it was a big news story in the UK. But it would be interesting to see the arguments of keep voters! as to how WP:RECENT media coverage equates to needing a WP:NOTNEWS encyclopaedia article. An encyclopedia and a colection of news clippings are not the same thing. The keepers don't seem to address that: specifically could someone talk through the 10 year test thought experiment in relation to this article. DeCausa (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we have similar articles with extensive news coverage on deaths from exposure/misadventure/wilderness etc. including

Darrelljon (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Los Angeles County shootings[edit]

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

This shooting does not appear to have drawn any sustained coverage outside of local routine coverage. Fails WP:NEVENT, particularly WP:LASTING. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Firearms, and California. Pbritti (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider the fact that because this happened in the United States events like these are quickly removed from the news cycle. Raskuly (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For exactly that reason events like these are not automatically notable. Athel cb (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per above Lordseriouspig 09:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider doing this to other articles on the List of mass shootings in the United States article then since this article's deletion seems inevitable at this point right after you had my other article deleted. Raskuly (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Note categories at the bottom of the article, and the navbox that has five years of shootings around the United States. Why delete this one, and keep all the rest? I'm surprised there is not a Wikipedia project for this subject. — Maile (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Those other shootings have sustained coverage because of their notable elements beyond the fact that multiple people were injured or killed (a tragic but non-notable event). For example, this shooting that I remember happening near me a few years ago achieved nationwide sustained coverage beyond ROUTINE due to the shooter's radicalization. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Then could an argument in favor of keeping this article be that this is an instance of gang-related violence in which the targets were apparent random individuals? Raskuly (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Not unless this incident was characterized as notable for that reason and the incident received sustained coverage. Most smaller mass shootings (4–8 victims) do not meet this threshold. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I guess something that is similar to what you mean would be the 2022 Sacramento shooting. Raskuly (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree, it never got national coverage, and so fails WP:NEVENT Carson004 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mott family murders[edit]

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

Fails NEVENT. All sources are from the week this happened, no follow up, failing WP:SUSTAINED. In addition, familicides are by far the most common kind of mass murder and tend to receive the least coverage, so the odds that this will receive any kind of retrospective coverage when coverage has ceased, especially since it's been two years with nothing, is slim to none. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Alaska. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even without WP:CRYSTALing, this has barely been mentioned and therefore fails WP:GNG, and it's nowhere near having the lasting consequences needed for WP:NEVENT. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University of Texas at Austin stabbing[edit]

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. A non-fatal stabbing where a single non-notable person was injured, no deaths. The citations in the background section do not mention this incident as they predate it. There was a brief burst of coverage that it happened and the perpetrator was indicted without hate crime charges (covered only by local media) and there has been no coverage since, failing WP:SUSTAINED.

Additionally, there was a fatal mass stabbing at this same school in 2017 that is substantially closer to passing NEVENT that we do not have an article on (imo it still doesn't pass NEVENT but this is to make a point): the reason this article exists appears to be the Palestine connection.

Due to the circumstances it can probably be merged somewhere if anyone wants that but I have no ideas. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Palestine, and Texas. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with appropriate article listing instances of anti-Palestinian violence in the United States or the West in general. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No opposition to that, but could you suggest a specific target? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made a cursory search and did not find any. Perhaps "Anti-Palestinian racism" has a section on U.S. incidents. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The topic is notable as a prominent and specific example of Anti-Palestinian racism, which is precisely what made it stand out as an event against the background noise in the US. It does also have sustained coverage, with the event continuing to fuel the discussion on hate crime in the US some ~~six~~ two and a half months later. Yes, the only reason this topic is notable is the hate crime element ... because that – the context of the violence, not its form – is what is notable. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who has declared it "prominent"? It made the news for three days and then dropped off the map. It does not have sustained coverage, and there has been no proof of that presented. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got the dates muddled: it's two and a half months later with the update, which you know about, do clearly not three days. More generally, one might just say: wait! There's hardly even time for it to be discussed in other mediums than news yet, so it's hard to know what else is expected. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A two month update saying it wasn't a hate crime from a local news outlet with no further analysis or retrospection? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to University of Texas at Austin#2024 Pro-Palestinian Protests per other users and WP:NOTNEWS. One injury, no deaths. Jiminy Christmas, this shit happens every day around the world. Wikipedia is not a crime blotter. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to University of Texas at Austin#2024 Pro-Palestinian Protests and also mention at List of pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in the United States in 2024#UT Austin, which seems like the main article about the protests. This article is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:NOTNEWS. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Myanmar Air Force Shaanxi Y-8 crash[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. From what I've been able to find, the majority of sources are primary with a lack of/no reliable secondary sources. The event does not have in-depth nor continued coverage coverage. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Myanmar, and Mizoram. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Which of the references is primary? And why would an incident in 2024 already have continued coverage? gidonb (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about the references used in the article or published news articles outside the article?

Per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." I've only been able to find news coverage dating from when the accident happened. Coverage of the accident only lasted 1-3 days. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References are in the articles and sources are out there. My question was for the references. The continued coverage requirement is important, however, it takes time until media get back to an event. This one happened in 2024. gidonb (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the accident, pretty much all references are primary without any analysis of the event.

Per WP:NTEMP: "_{While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, an article may be proposed for deletion months or even years after its creation, or recreated whenever new evidence supports its existence as a standalone article.}" Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Nearly six months after the event, nobody's much interested, and there's no discernable reason why they should be. Also, military crashes have a higher bar to cross for notability than civilian ones. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Danderyd municipal election[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT. Only sources I find in media archives are articles collating all the election results in Stockholm County. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Sweden. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a repository for individual election statistics on municipal level. It is simply not encyclopedic material. Geschichte (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more or less fancruft. Sjö (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding of Anant Ambani and Radhika Merchant[edit]

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

No doubt, this wedding is getting extensive media coverage. However, imv, the wedding does not qualify as a notable event and I see no lasting historical significance here so fails WP:NEVENT. All information can be adequately covered within articles about Anant Ambani. WP is not a newspaper so newsworthy doesn't equal notable. And just for information, both the groom and the bride aren't even notable on their own. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Anant Ambani: Even with so many keep votes, I'm still not convinced this wedding deserves a standalone article. WP:ATD? I'd prefer merging it into a BLP for Anant Ambani, as he now meets the GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, neither person getting married is notable, so I'm not sure why getting married is notable. Could be a one liner in the groom's father's article, that's about all. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of notable events where the individuals involved are not notable outside of their involvement in the specific event. Legoktm (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The contradiction in the nomination makes the case clear: this wedding is getting extensive media coverage, which makes it notable. Most weddings do not get massive media coverage, and on top of that even prominent Indian weddings don't get coverage in Western media. But this wedding has coverage in NYT, NBC, AP, USA Today, and plenty more. It's estimated that hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on the wedding (CNN) - can you think of any other event that costs hundreds of millions of dollars that wouldn't merit an article?

Policy wise, let's run through the list at WP:NEVENT: Lasting effects: skip; Geographical scope: check, affects most of Indian society, which is wide enough; Depth of coverage: check, as demonstrated above and by cursory Google News searches; Duration of coverage: check, this has been discussed since the wedding festivities started last year; Diversity of sources: check, wide variety of international sources.

So, lasting effects. It's of course hard to tell whether an event today will have "enduring historical significance". The NYT describes the wedding as having "introduced the world to the [India]’s Gilded Age." CNN says, "Attendees dressed the part, streaming past photographers in custom sarees, lehengas and kurtas at an event that may set forthcoming trends in Indian wedding fashion." NBC quoted a wedding planner saying: "I don’t think any wedding in the world or anyone has spent this kind of money in terms of expenses, magnitude, events, entertainment, decor or design."

The best analogy is probably courtesy of The Guardian, which calls the Ambanis the "Windsors of India". Unsurprisingly, you'll find Windsor weddings' articles listed at List of royal weddings. Legoktm (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article from Vanity Fair: The Ambani Wedding Will Set “Trends for Decades to Come,” According to Fashion Insiders Legoktm (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I heavily agree ―Howard • 🌽³³ 06:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The wedding has received (and is continuing to receive) a wide range of coverage in global media from reliable sources, several of which are explicitly projecting long-term impact and effects. The delete votes so far misunderstand what makes an event (as separate from an individual) notable. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, also Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNEWS. Youknow? (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the more I have a great disdain for these type of media hype, I can't help but point out that this event passes GNG. Coverage started way before the wedding. The pre-wedding ceremonies received extensive coverage as well. And it is very likely that this event will be discussed for years to come in mainstream media, which we use as a barometer for notability. X (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is now expanded. Pachu Kannan (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is covered by the reliable sources and references of major news networks from all over the world. Also the wedding is notable as many famous Celebrities around the world attend the event. 223.123.17.252 (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_of_Prince_William_and_Catherine_Middleton Astropulse (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe since people are still searching for this wedding and its festivities, let this page be there as a one stop for all the information. This wedding is still trending, and when it loses its charm (say October 2024) we can discuss its deletion. vishalkhopkar — Preceding undated comment added 03:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable. 『π』BalaM314 〘talk〙 14:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable and similar article Wedding_of_Prince_William_and_Catherine_Middleton DSP2092 (👤, 🗨️)
Keep: Like Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as disgusting as it is, it has ignited an important debate about wealth inequality in India and beyond, Bacus15 (talk) 09:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 visits by Viktor Orbán to Russia and China[edit]

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

I believe the article needs to go for two reasons:

(1) The article's subject (i.e., ~~three~~ ~~four~~ two foreign trips), is not independently notable. Foreign trips are an absolutely routine matter for ministers, prime ministers, presidents and other heads of state. Since Orbán undertook those trips as the prime minister of Hungary, they can of course be mentioned in Fifth Orbán Government or similar.

(2) The article's topic is overly vague. Article was created four days ago under the undoubtedly POV title, "2024 peace missions by Viktor Orbán", focusing on Orbán's three foreign trips: to Ukraine, Russia, and China. Then yesterday, his fourth trip, to the US, was added.[1]. After the article, and in particular its title, was challenged via PROD,[2] the US and Ukraine trips were removed and article renamed to its current title. This even further reduced not just notability but even WP:SIGNIFICANCE of these WP:RECENT events.

Overall, I see no reason for Wikipedia to have a separate article on Orban's two foreigns trips, which will be all barely remembered in a year from now.

So, it'll be either a hard delete or a merge and redirect to an existing article about Orbán's government. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Hungary. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's at least 20 sources, with an extensive analysis for each point made, I'm not sure what else you could want at this point. It meets GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning was clear: it's not notable for a standalone article. See, for every news event, you'll have dozens of sources. For every speech of a US president, you'll have possibly hundreds of rolling news reports. But this doesn't mean that each speech should receive a standalone Wikipedia article. Same concern here: Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to a broader article covering the Fifth Orbán Government or Viktor Orbán's diplomacy. The article covers the trips in some detail. Yet, they do not appear to meet the threshold for standalone notability due to their routine nature as part of a head of state's duties. Adding this info to a broader context will keep the relevant historical record. Yet, it will avoid giving too much weight to events that may not last. This approach will also streamline related content. It will strengthen the details of Viktor Orbán's political movements. It will also make the new article more complete.--AstridMitch (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Violation of WP:NOTNEWS, see also WP:RECENT. The topic is notable only as part of 2024 Hungarian Presidency of the Council of the European Union, Fifth Orbán Government, and / or similar. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an international diplomatic conflict that has already generated so many sources and comments is always notable. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a polite observation that this is not an article about a diplomatic conflict, whatever that may mean. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please save this cynical comment for others. It's just a polite note. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Many of the sources in the article do treat the three visits as one cohesive topic, but for now, we have no knowledge of what lasting significance these visits may have. I cannot find any real effects that have come of these meetings except reactions from various countries, but that does not constitute stand alone notability in my mind. Instead, this can adaquetely be covered in an article like the Fifth Orbán Government. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There's not a general subarticle for his prime ministership, but shouldn't his actions during this term be at Fifth Orbán Government? Reywas92^Talk 14:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Fails WP:NEVENT. It's hard to think how a single state visit by a political leader could be notable given that anything of significance in a visit would be an event (or events) *during* the visit, not the visit per se. For the visit to be notable it would need to rise to the level of something like the 1972 visit by Richard Nixon to China. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Indeed, these two visits were subjected to an almost unprecedented spotlight, especially his visit to Moscow, and recently even the European Parliament condemned it! It can be kept now and wait. EpicAdventurer (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden's July 2024 press conference[edit]

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

This is yet another WP:NOTNEWS article created about Biden's cognitive wellbeing through WP:RECENTISM. A press conference, no matter how few he has held, is a WP:ROTM event that will not pass the WP:10YT. Not every thing that is said or done needs to be documented on Wikipedia, let alone receive its own article. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. If sources eventually indicate that this was historically significant to the presidential campaign, then we can describe it in the article on the presidential campaign. As it is, it's a pile of news-cruft. XOR'easter (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Washington summit and add section As most of the point of the press conference was it was a part of said summit and other leader comments should be added as appropriate, but this needs a shorter summarization. Nate • (chatter) 16:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also sensible. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wonder how many press conferences there have been in history. Did we declare war or did Nixon resign again? OK with a section in 2024 Washington Summit if it focuses on the summit, or the presidential campaign if it stays in the news. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need an article for Donald Trump's press conference where he talked about killing COVID with bleach and UV light? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's how the witch turned me into a newt. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we need an article on President's Trump statement about COVID, bleach, and UV light because the exact details are being confused by various external articles, social media posts, and so on. There is a midpoint between two polar opposite views on the strange statement. Starlighsky (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a solo press conference that connects to earlier historical events where a U.S. president had made mistakes as well as the issue of presidents who did not run for the next term, which has happened twice so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk • contribs) 17:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really an argument that the topic needs to be covered in an article of its own, though. XOR'easter (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge and redirect to 2024 Washington summit per MrSchimpf. Per nom. and others, case of WP:NOTNEWS. Sal2100 (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning merge to 2024 Washington summit. BD2412 T 18:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2024 Washington summit as others have said. The press conference is one of the biggest headlines out of the Summit, so a mention is warranted there, but as it currently stands there doesn't seem to be enough for a standalone article. If this particular press conference eventually seems to have a significant effect on Biden's campaign/the upcoming election, then a separate article could be warranted, similar to Dean scream. Sewageboy (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Age and health concerns of Joe Biden (currently nominated for deletion but likely to be kept). This would be WP:UNDUE at 2024 Washington summit. --Un assiolo (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it would be undue at the 2024 Washington summit, where it was held and what it was about? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The article about the press conference isn't really about the content of the conference but about Biden's health. The NATO summit is its own topic, notable for reasons unrelated to Biden. A very brief mention might be appropriate, but the bulk of this article clearly doesn't belong there. --Un assiolo (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good reason to delete and rewrite it for a merge into 2024 Washington summit. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Merge whatever you want, but people need to stop making separate pages for every thing that happens in the news. Reywas92^Talk 14:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable event. One out of many press conferences given by the President; had he not flubbed so much during the debate with Trump, this wouldn't even be talked aobut. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete for reasons said above. Not notable enough. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 21:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to 2024 Washington summit for reasons noted above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOTNEWS. Might be able to be mentioned in a sentence somewhere on the campaign. Might. SportingFlyer T·C 10:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kostya Tszyu vs. Sharmba Mitchell II[edit]

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

The article is written like a narrative around the leadup to and during the fight. Additionally, all these extra details aren't supported by the single source provided, which I believe is WP:NOR. When looking for reliable resources about this fight and match card, I could only find a couple of news articles from ABC News (Australia) that explained the fight was happening and not much else. CREEDIXMO ^(TALK) 22:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - World title fights are usually inherently notable events. This article was written at an era in which reliably-sourced material was not deemed as important to the article as it is today. It will be hard to find reliable links due to the fact the bout took place 20 years ago, but I am working on that as I speak. Jeanette La Trevi Martin (digame) 03:40, 12 July, 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Boxing, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A notable world title bout, the article needs rewriting not deleting. Sam11333 (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EOdisha Summit[edit]

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

Fails the general notability guideline. No independent sources to speak of. Also bundling:

SaUp2014 (talk · contribs) may need closer attention to determine whether any more of their articles merit deletion. – Teratix ₵ 15:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Technology, and Odisha. – Teratix ₵ 15:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not a notable conference, and the per-year articles are filled with unsourced minutiae. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Articles make no attempt to establish a credible claim of significance, let alone notability. No independent sources of any kind and few sources in general. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not sure about A7 but definitely fails WP:NORG/GNG. Google search only returns their websites and these articles. C F A 💬 21:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate its notability and importance.--RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Saipan International (badminton)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:EVENT. The winners are already covered in base article Saipan International (badminton).zoglophie^•talk• 06:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Badminton, Oceania, and United States of America. zoglophie^•talk• 06:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Mesterfinalen#2009. ✗plicit 23:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Mesterfinalen[edit]

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

Non-notable cancelled football match with very little WP:IMPACT, other than that the competition did not resume again after the cancellation. Geschichte (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mesterfinalen#Editions#2019. It's a possible valid WP:STUB, place holder page with information, but I don't see much point off whats on the main article, so I suggest a redirect as it's covered what happened on the main page. Govvy (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 15:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nike Indoor Nationals[edit]

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

Also nominating Nike Outdoor Nationals (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch.

Reviewed during NPP. All 3 sources are from the event's official website, and I found no sources online that establish notability. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sport of athletics, New York, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep. ~~I agree that there are no good sources, and that its near impossible to find a reliable source talking about the Nike Indoor Nationals.~~ Turns out there are some good sources talking about it. A lot of @Habst's sources are about the Nike Outdoor nationals, but they still provided a good number of articles about the Indoor Nationals. The sources aren't really fully about the event specifically, but I believe they're still fine articles to use. Coulomb1 (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because the event meets WP:GNG as an important prep athletics championship. Responding to the concerns by @CanonNi and @Coulomb1, there's plenty of independent coverage from The Washington Post, New York Times, The Post-Standard, MileSplit, The Journal News, Bozeman Daily Chronicle The Cullman Times, and many more. --Habst (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of my links were for the indoor nationals – for the outdoor nationals, there's even more coverage from LetsRun.com, Track & Field News, The Santa-Cruz Sentinel, Eugene Register-Guard, MileSplit, etc. --Habst (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know how this slipped past me. I have no problem with keeping this article then. Coulomb1 (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindergarden (demoparty)[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There is a Digi.no article, but it consists of telling what one of the organizers said. Other than that, I was only able to find mentions and short descriptions, such as "The two pure demo parties in Norway are Solskogen, which is organised in July every year, and Kindergarden, which is held in November. Kindergarden can boast that it is the world's oldest demo party that is still organised."

A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Computing, and Norway. toweli (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: All the sources are self-published or that Digi.no article which is pretty much just an event announcement. Could not find anything on google for it either. Probably sufficient to put "Amiga-focused demoparty which began in a kindergarden in YEAR and ended in YEAR, reaching 200 attendees in YEAR". Mrfoogles (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. just write what is possible based off those sources and maybe their website Mrfoogles (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2019 CAFA U-16 Championship[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage Mdann52 (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. the initial delete nomination (lack independent sourcing):

Link 1 by Khovar.tj National Information Agency of Tajikistan/ not related to CAFA

Link 2 Tasnim News Agency an Iranian new agency Independent from CAFA

Link 3 Turkmen news agency which is also Independent from CAFA

Link 4 Sport.kg an Information Agency; Sport.kg is the only specialized portal in Kyrgyzstan

and many more; that i will add to the article to enhance it sourcing

2. The tournament is organized by the Central Asian Football Association (CAFA), which oversees football in Central Asia. CAFA is a member of the AFC and, therefore, FIFA. As an international competition between member nations, the tournament holds significant notability. This is particularly relevant now, as some footballers who participated in the tournament are becoming prominent figures in Central Asian football and across Asia. The tournament shall be cited as the beginning of their international careers, further emphasizing its importance. Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, and Central Asia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I included more resources from other independent sources such as:
jomhornews.com, m.kun.uz, trt.net.tr, and sport.kg. Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GiantSnowman can you please specify what's make a tournament notable enough; so i can send the sources that adresse it ? Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage - the sources above are WP:ROUTINE. Giant Snowman 13:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Matchday 1:

Tajikistan v Uzbekistan at sports.uz

Kyrgyzstan v Afghansitan at sport.kg

Matchday 2:

Uzbekistan v Iran at Tasnimnews.com

Uzbekistan v Iran at Sports.uz

Tajikistan v Kyrgyzstan at avesta.tj

Matchday 3:

Iran v Afghanistan at Irannewsdaily.com

Iran v Afghanistan at farsi.alarabiya.net

Iran v Afghanistan at avapress.com

Kyrgyzstan v Uzbekistan at sport.kg

Matchday 4:

Turkmenistan v Kyrgyzstan at Turkmenportal.com

Turkmenistan v Kyrgyzstan at sport.kg

Turkmenistan v Kyrgyzstan at Kabar.kg

Afghanistan v Uzbekistan at sputnik.af

Afghanistan v Uzbekistan at dzen.ru

Matchday 5:

Kyrgyzstan v Iran at Tansimnews.com

Tajikistan v Afghanistan at sputnik.af

Iran

All matches reports at toopball.com

Kyrgyzstan

Kyrgystan at for.kg

Other tournament reports
Champion at rus.ozodi.org

Championship at nm.tj

Schedule at ilna.ir

Should I add more? The tournament's matches were covered by all the top news agencies in Central Asia.

Also Asian Football Confederation did post all these covering the tournament
Matchday 1

Matchday 2

Matchday 3

Matchday 4

Matchday 5

Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment International level competition and there are sources, however they are very young. So I am not sure at what level wikipedia should be keeping these. Govvy (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
let us remember that The Central Asian Football Association (CAFA) was only formed in 2015, and with the tournament being the 8th tournament organised, CAFA has shown significant progress in promoting and developing football in the region. Over the years, CAFA has developed its media coverage and reporting capabilities, making the tournaments more accessible and notable. While the first editions may have had limited coverage due to CAFA's emerging stage and limited experience, the organization's growth and increased attention highlight the importance of these early stages articles being there.

Furthermore, for Central Asia, where international sports events are relatively scarce, CAFA's tournaments hold notable significance. The early editions of the tournament are crucial for understanding the development of football in the region and providing a better statistical context. As CAFA continues to grow and attract more attention, the historical records of all editions, including the first ones, will be valuable for researchers, fans, and anyone interested in the football in Central Asia.

Therefore, despite its relatively young age, CAFA's tournaments are notable and deserving of coverage on Wikipedia, as they contribute to the broader narrative of international sports in Central Asia. Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Schalke 04 Cup[edit]

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

As a friendly tournament, the matches were of no consequence. Thus, 10 years later, we can clearly see that the tournament was not noteworthy, wasn't important in the world of football and got a corresponding lack of coverage (apart from reports of the matches). The level of detailed coverage on display (goalscorers, match kick-off times, table) is therefore not needed, with the entry failing WP:NOTINHERITED (notability not being inherited from the participating teams), WP:MILL, WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTSTATS among others. Geschichte (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It is self-evident that a friendly tournament will not change the course of football history, but the record of a competition that brought together four top-tier clubs in Europe does not seem impertinent to me, and the records of the matches and other relevant information are all available for verification. As there were no more editions to stabilize the competition, as occurred with the Audi Cup, I understand the nomination, but I do not see sufficient reason to eliminate the article. Svartner (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability, and thus doesn't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and part merge to 2014–15 FC Schalke 04 season, there is a bizarre notion that pre-seasons have no bering on club seasons, well they can, from injuries to key players, a club debut for another player. I don't see a need for this AfD at this level. There is a scattering effect of information and then there is no information. How in-depth to you want an article to be. It could easily be kept with good coverage. But I don't see the point here. Clearly no thought to a redirect or adding certain information to the other club season articles. Govvy (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. After discarding arguments of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-type and those not based on guidelines, we're left with a consensus to delete. Any editor is welcome to create the page as a redirect to Air Europa with an appropriate section at the target. Owen× ☎ 17:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Air Europa Flight 045[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Failure to comply with WP:NOTABILITY. Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This was a similar incident that happened to LATAM Airlines Flight 800 in March 2024. 71.114.103.105 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 16:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elaborate. To some extent we have to avoid make articles about events just because they're in the news, but some events are notable enough to warrant an article, such as an in-flight upset that injures over forty people. Poxy4 (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly and not just 40 injured but 10 being critically aswell. I've seen a few articles (which are now deleted) that from my perspective isn't notable, but people thinking this incident should be deleted is mind-boggling. 2605:8D80:400:9392:E4F1:C26C:D541:CCEA (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a few people were injured doesn't make an article notable - these events are relatively common and there's no evidence of lasting coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 17:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~40 people isn't a "few". 2605:8D80:400:9392:1D11:14AA:DB77:C88F (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)~~strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Firstly, this deletion seems like a WP:RAPID move to me. Sufficient secondary sources do exist at the moment and serious injuries have also taken place: [3], [4], [5] and plenty more. GalacticOrbits (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turbulence occurs in such a way that passengers are injured very frequently and it makes a news cycle. There's nothing to suggest this will be any more notable than any of those non-notable events. SportingFlyer T·C 19:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But this is a larger than normal number of people who have been injured. 65.132.132.162 (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Look at LATAM Airlines Flight 800... Wonder what you'll say now huh. 2605:8D80:400:9392:D5DE:BDDD:4CB:2DBE (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)~~strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Turbulence is such a regular occurrence in planes, but I'm assuming from the plane's flightpath, from it going from Spain to Uruguay which crosses the Equator. The "extreme turbulence" mentioned in the article might have been caused by the Equator's turbulence. A regular plane incident isn't worthy of Wikipedia standards.

|

Anybody who wants to know if the article is worthy of being an article should read WP:PLANECRASH. 71.223.74.246 (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Said this like you've never did any research before, congrats. You didn't even acknowledge the amount of injuries and fatal injuries on this flight, take a look at LATAM Airlines Flight 800 and its the same exact incident. 2605:8D80:400:9392:D5DE:BDDD:4CB:2DBE (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)strike sock[reply]

Plenty of flights cross the equator every day that do not experience such severe turbulence. Also, most emergency flights do not have any injuries at all. If this is a "regular plane incident" then that's news to me. Poxy4 (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - by sources indicated above and by others per WP:NEXIST. While turbulence is common in aviation, 40 injured by turbulence not as much. gidonb (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated to the discussion, the IP user above gidnob's post appears to be a troll acting in similar patterns to other deletionist trolls, if someone could get a mod that would be great. 174.27.146.142 (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~You yourself are using an IP aswell, you have no room to talk. Mad for what? 2605:8D80:400:9392:D5FE:E7B5:F498:F52C (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)~~strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to fight back, just going to give you a reminder to stay civil, I have an account on my school laptop if that helps you, this is a discussion not an arguement. 174.27.146.142 (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm also not a "troll" so be careful what you say. 2605:8D80:400:9392:D5FE:E7B5:F498:F52C (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)~~strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you all must, maybe next time start such a discussion under the comment that is relevant to that discussion? gidonb (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT #4. The comparison with LATAM Airlines Flight 800 is irrelevant: ~~firstly,~~ WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't determine the notability of this event~~, and in any case the fatality on LA800 and the procedural changes that resulted from the flight add notability that isn't present here~~. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about SQ321 since it had a fatality and resulted in procedural changes? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yes, confused those two – I've struck part of my comment accordingly. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Read articles and posts from the internet and people were being held up against the roof? I mean come on, you think this is common to you?? 2605:8D80:400:9392:798A:5167:ED51:6104 (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I advise you do some more research about this Air Europa incident because it clearly looks like you have not even tried to make an effort to. 10 people were badly injured and 30 others suffering other injuries. The connection between this and LATAM is relevant. The only difference was that this was due to bad turbulence. Would love to hear a reply from you because i seen you revert an edit from another article stating that this is a "run-of-the-mill"? Remember that 40+ including 10+(badly) were injured. 2605:8D80:400:9392:798A:5167:ED51:6104 (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EVENTCRIT item 4 says Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, [...]) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. The same applies to turbulence. This incident was more severe than average, sure, but it remains a run-of-the-mill event with no inherent notability. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Severe in-flight upset that resulted in 40 injuries and numerous hospitalizations. Has received significant media coverage and is thus notable enough to be included. As for WP:OSE, it would apply if these editors were saying "well if we delete this we have to delete the other one too," but that is not the case. Comparisons were drawn to LATAM 800 as a comparison. It too received significant media coverage and was deemed notable enough for an article. Perhaps you should review WP:ATAATA? Changing my vote to Delete, numerous editors have provided several sources and policies that apply almost perfectly to this article. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL It only makes sense for me to change my vote. I do think we should make a list of turbulence-related in-flight upsets that have resulted in injuries though, so as to emphasize their increasing occurrence.Poxy4 (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"If we delete this we have to delete the other one" is not what WP:OTHERSTUFF is about. What it actually says is that the existence of an article about a similar topic cannot be used to justify a keep !vote (the case at hand), nor can the non-existence of a similar article be used to justify a delete. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent an hour reading your edit log and you seem to have always vote for delete. You seem to have huge hate for articles or something. 2605:8D80:400:9392:E4F1:C26C:D541:CCEA (talk) 09:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make arguments to the person. I'm sure this person is a levelheaded Wikipedian who simply doesn't have the same view of Wikipedia as us, which is totally fine and doesn't mean he "hates articles." Poxy4 (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I don't "hate articles", it's just that I would rather see articles about notable topics and notable events. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the qualifying factors for notability is that the event receives significant media coverage, which it has. multiple editors have provided sources that cover the flight. I myself heard about the incident through the news and came to Wikipedia for more information. Isn't that what all good encyclopedias should do? Poxy4 (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Exactly. 2605:8D80:400:9392:50A9:33C8:C6C4:BDF4 (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)~~strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually, on reviewing OSE I have realized that that's pretty much what it says. However, the examples it gives are all two very different and unrelated articles, whereas LATAM800 and UX45 have undeniable similarities. We have decided that one is notable, so I believe this virtually identical incident is also notable. Poxy4 (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're not similar, and each article has to stand on its own merits. LATAM 800 was either an issue with the plane or a pilot error, which is unique. This is simply that a plane went through turbulence and people were injured, which happens relatively frequently. SportingFlyer T·C 17:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~40 injured doesn't "happen frequently". 2605:8D80:400:9392:1D11:14AA:DB77:C88F (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)~~strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] How many of these flights have Wikipedia articles? SportingFlyer T·C 22:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~This incident had more injuries and there were more damages to the aircraft than the Hawaiian incident. 2605:8D80:400:9392:50A9:33C8:C6C4:BDF4 (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)~~strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with our rules here on Wikipedia - we require sustained coverage for events, and considering how often events like this one occur, how rarely they have sustained coverage, and how there's not really any sustained coverage for this one - the vast majority of coverage is from the day of the event. SportingFlyer T·C 05:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am neither in favor or opposed to deletion. However, I advise the IP to let this discussion run its course and not treat it as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Calling others "trolls" and alleging that users "hate articles" is not constructive and will not help your case. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Air Europa Flight 045 is an ongoing event. Like SQ 321 and LATAM Flight 800, this latest plane incident receives significant coverage in news networks such as CNN and BBC, and I'm not surprised there will be an investigation conducted on this matter. I also agree with GalacticOrbits opinion, in which they mentioned there are some serious injuries that have taken place as a result of plane turbulence. Galaxybeing (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The general notability guideline is partly based on how much coverage the event receives in the media. It's one of the reasons why the Disappearance of Jay Slater has an article and not a lot of other disappearances that have occured. UX45 has seen significant media coverage, which I think makes it notable. Poxy4 (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something passes the WP:GNG does not mean we need to have an article on it, that is why we have WP:NOT. One of the specific parts of WP:NOT is WP:NOTNEWS: most newsworthy reports do not qualify for inclusion. For aviation events such as this one, sustained coverage is required. As I've noted above, most incidents of this type are not notable enough to receive a Wikipedia article, even though they make a full news cycle. While every article needs to be assessed on its own merits, I am not seeing anything which distinguishes this one from any of the other "injuries due to turbulence." But, regardless, just because the media writes about something doesn't mean we have to have an article on it. SportingFlyer T·C 14:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of emergency landings and in-flight turbulence events occur every week, but very few result in as much damage and injuries as this one. This has made a full news cycle and is still in the news several days later, which I think sets it apart from many other flights and warrants notability. Poxy4 (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a Google News search, the event happened 4 days ago and there hasn't been an article written on the event in the past two days that was in the search. So I did a Bing news search, the only article written within the last 48 hours which came up was a Daily Mail piece, which clearly isn't notable. So I did a third news search, and again, nothing in the last two days. This doesn't have lasting notability. SportingFlyer T·C 19:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:NOTNEWS. Whilst the event has received a lot of coverage, the fact that (major) coverage ended 2-3 days ago (constituting mostly of breaking news coverage), compared to SQ321 where coverage continued for at least two weeks, makes this event fail WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Around 65,000 aircrafts suffer turbulence in the US, and about 5,500 experience severe turbulence, so cases such as this would be considered run-of-the-mill.[11] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very few of the incidents result in injuries or are so shocking. One passenger was launched into an overhead bin and had to be pulled out by fellow passengers. That's not run-of-the-mill. Poxy4 (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are multiple examples of severe turbulence, where numerous injuries, some severe, were recorded: Qatar Airways, Hawaiian Airlines, Lufthansa, United Airlines, Turkish Airlines, Aerolíneas Argentinas, KLM, [Delta Air Lines], JetBlue, Aeroflot, Transavia, [Air Canada]. In the past 40 years, turbulence has increased by 55% making events like this increasingly more common,[12] [13] which makes these events, more often than not, run-of-the-mill. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't argue with the facts ig. Poxy4 (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The incident had a lot of repercussion and still has a lot of attention in Brazil, as of writting this, a news featured the incident showing one of the videos in the aftermath. Iyusi766 (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked and the last news articles (in portuguese) covering this flight were published 4-5 days ago so I'm not sure about what news articles you're talking about. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was the day after the accident, so of course there isn't much. Ultimateyeetus (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. There is no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviationwikiflight @Rosbif73 @Ultimateyeetus I'm talking about being featured in TV. It appeared in Fantástico, from TV Globo, on Sunday, and it explained a lot what happened, lile the fact why it took 2 hours~ for the ambulances to start helping the injured, and that the plane is still there, etc. In Jornal Nacional it was featured as well. Iyusi766 (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 03:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet. Please offer arguments based in policy and sources that provide SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This incident is similar to Singapore Airlines Flight 321 and just recieved about as much coverage. I understand that some people have been saying that this occurance is run-of-the-mill but there were 10 major injuries and 40 in total, not very common. Most of the cabin was destroyed unlike the hawaiian flight Sportingflyer sent. I have seen a lot of turbulence incidents but this specific one was the most that stuck out to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:400:9392:C15F:4B19:511:5CED (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC) This IP has already voted above. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Delete - This incident seems to be nothing more than a run of the mill aviation incident with no deaths or major ramifications compared to SQ321 or UAL826 or JAL706. --Jnglmpera (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Air Europa I found this article when searching WikiProyect avition, seems like something you would see from a news article, this is a encyclopedia. We have WikiNews for News covers, (and if you’re asking why I know a lot, is because I read and even understand Wikipedia, when I was in I.P.) Protoeus (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In my opinion there should be more information added to the article, if expanded, it would probably save the page from deletion. Good news: the last two passengers were discharged from the hospital. Hooray! Could be added. Iyusi766 (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seoul Tourism Awards[edit]

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

Non-notable award which effectively serves the purpose of rewarding people who promote tourism in Seoul. The awards don't seem to have any significant coverage in third-party sources aside from trivial mentions and promotional pieces. There are no mainspace pages that link to the article either, apart from List of awards and nominations received by NewJeans. The article has only had a few edits made since its creation 15 years ago, mostly by bots. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Travel and tourism, and South Korea. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of notability. I encourage you to search for articles about the award in Korean; the award has a ton of non trivial and non (at least it seems like) promotional coverage.

[14][15][16][17]

I can look up more upon request.

Also I'd argue the lack of activity and links is much more secondary to coverage. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

[Pinto_2014_173–180-1] Pinto, Carla M. A.; Lopes, A. Mendes; Machado, J. A. Tenreiro (2014). "Casualties Distribution in Human and Natural Hazards". In Ferreira, Nuno Miguel Fonseca; Machado, José António Tenreiro (eds.). Mathematical Methods in Engineering. Springer Netherlands. pp. 173–180. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7183-3_16. ISBN 978-94-007-7182-6.

[1]