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.
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:
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]
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.
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 (talkIcontribs) 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]
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."
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]
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 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 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]
I believe the article needs to go for two reasons:
(1) The article's subject (i.e., threefourtwo 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.
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. — kashmīrīTALK00:21, 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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Speedy delete Merge whatever you want, but people need to stop making separate pages for every thing that happens in the news. Reywas92Talk14:30, 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]
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)
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]
Delete The subject lacks sufficient notability and detailed coverage in reliable sources outside of local military records and local commemorations.NxcryptoMessage09:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The whole article is based on WP:PRIMARY document prepared by OUN (pdf, p. 340-341). I wasn't able to find any reliable informations about this battle or its importance, probably some minor clash, when to groups just fired at eachother. Of course OUN in his internal documents reported huge losses of the enemy, but as I said it's not reliable. Marcelus (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete immediately, this article cannot be allowed to remain, it is based on some UPA chronicle what is it anyway? Such a source will not be acceptable due to such as lying UPA documents often on which the book is based. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fail to see any sources in any of the three languages of the title. Meaning that the notability is highly questionable. - Altenmann>talk18:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This may be too early to do, but this is WP:TOOSOON. we still don't even know lots of the damage, and as usual this tornado has already been widely forgotten (from what I've seen on the news and other sources). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Sulphur tornado for an example of this. While both tornadoes are barely comparable, this still has that same general precedent. The driving factor for this AfD is still the WP:TOOSOON, as we usually wait more than a month to make an article on a tornado.(And it wasn't even the deadliest tornado of the outbreak). Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 13:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This tornado is also notable for its DOW measurement, which has already been published in an academic setting. It's certainly important to the history of tornado research, and its death / injury toll was the highest since Rolling Fork. This tornado will almost certainly not be forgotten in the meteorological community on account of its damage and measured intensity, unlike Sulphur, as well as other EF4 tornadoes such as Barnsdall 2024 and Keota 2023. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It wasn't the deadliest but it definitely was the most infamous tornado of the sequence, arguably one of the most tornado of the 2020s, not to mention its record breaking DOW reading that (even though it lasted only a second) had recorded winds up to 300+ mph, so personally I think the article should remain Joner311 — Preceding undated comment added 17:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with this, it likely was one of the strongest tornadoes since at least 2013, and will likely be a remembered tornado in the state of Iowa. ImAdhafera (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As people have said above, the DOW measurements of 300 mph winds, the death/injury toll + the damage is a good bit enough to justify an article. Poodle23 (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Professional publications were already out at the time of both deletion discussions. Anyone claiming it was twitter speculation was just not paying attention. Wikiwillz (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't exactly call that 'full community consensus'. At the time, the sources known to editors from June were the FARM team's Twitter post, and the NBC article. NBC stated 300+, and, while Wikipedia does allow Twitter in certain contexts, editors gravitated towards the NBC article's lack of a precise wind speed estimate. The University of Illinois paper is now a known reliable source with exact wind speed estimates (309-318). The other argument I saw was the article being short and having 'empty spaces', which I will concur on, but the main point from the original draft's lack of consensus has been resolved. As for notability, the paper states the estimate is one of only three above 300mph, alongside Bridge Creek-Moore 1999 and El Reno 2013. Both of those have articles, so notability shouldn't be an issue. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the AfD has nothing to do with its' notability (as it in the past day has proven its' notability) but that it is WP:TOOSOON. I'm reiterating the now-inactive User:TornadoInformation12's policy of "wait till all info is out." It's notable, just the article was created in a hurry. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly wanting to !vote neutral. Basically, here is my thought process: Article was made WP:TOOSOON, given everything regarding the tornado (damage wise) is still preliminary and will be until mid-August 2024 (at the earliest). However, I also believe the tornado should have an article, given the WP:LASTING coverage/impacts of it. A search on Google for "Greenfield" "tornado" shows several news articles (10+) in the last 2 weeks, even though the tornado occurred nearly 2 months ago. So, here is what I propose doing: We draftify the article only until the finalized damage reports come out in mid-August. Following the release and a subsequent re-check on LASTING coverage (that shouldn't be an issue) then it is moved back into mainspace. Seems a little formal to do, but that has and still is my overall ideology: no individual tornado articles until finalized reports come out. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)20:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I am new to the editing game, still deciding even whether to make an account or not, but would Merge with the article in draftspace ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:2024_Greenfield_tornado ) be an available outcome? While both still have their issues, this one in in mainspace seems to be a bit further along. To me, it makes sense to take the good information in here, put it in the draftspace article, and then publish that one. From what little I understand, that seems kind of like a Merge process to me, but it's unclear whether merging from mainspace back into draftspace is an allowed outcome of an AfD. 199.209.147.178 (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my opinion TOOSOON is more for articles created hours or days before any official information is revealed beyond its existence, or for when facts aren't known or verified. The page for the 2013 El Reno tornado was created well before the final survey was completed, and only 1 week after the tornado occurred, and was never nominated for deletion in its opening months; same for the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado, which was created a mere 48 hours later. This article (this specific page, not the old draft) was created a full month later when there are concrete and reliable sources for facts giving it notability. I think TOOSOON was a better argument before the University of Illinois paper or NWS survey, but now that the paper's out, as are most of the damage point surveys, the tornado has enough concrete facts and information to warrant an article. The final assessment isn't the only source in most tornado articles, so it shouldn't dictate whether this one gets deleted when so much is known and confirmed about it. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply for GeorgeMemulous: I sort of agree with that, but also partially disagree. The main issue isn’t really with there not being sources, but the fact the sources (and the article subsequently) are all using preliminary information. For example, almost the entire Formation and path and the entire Adair County sections of the article are sourced with only the Damage Assessment Toolkit (DAT), a preliminary tool by the National Weather Service to release preliminary statements/press releases. In fact, when anyone opens the DAT, they are automatically greeted with a big slash text which says:
Welcome to the National Weather Service Damage Assessment Toolkit. Data on this interface is collected during NWS Post-Event Damage Assessments. While the data has been quality controlled, it is still considered preliminary. (Not my bolding, that is NOAA’s bolding)
Official statistics for severe weather events can be found in the Storm Data publication, available from the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) at: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/sd/sd.html
Because of that splash text, that is why TOOSOON still partially applies. That said, I do see where you are coming from. I honestly think we need some new template (similar in a way to a “clean-up” template or the current event template) that we can put at the top of articles or sections (tornadic, tornado outbreaks, hurricanes, ect…) to indicate information in this may still be preliminary. Wikipedia obviously already is an unreliable source for information (WP:RSPWP), however, saying that would help readers know things here are not “set in stone” per say and will be changed at some later date. Eh, I may think about that template proposal later. For this, I am still wanting to stay neutral, but I will say I am leaning towards keeping only on grounds of me finding clear LASTING coverage. I still stick to my premise of waiting at the very least until the official information comes out rather than preliminary information. Basically, wait for the official primary source rather than purely use the preliminary primary source. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)16:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Despite the annoying fact that the NWS Des Moines doesn't put in damage summary information in both their PNSs and event pages, the DAT had more than enough information to create this summary. Additionally, despite being short, the "Aftermath" section is well written and uses secondary sources. This was not only the strongest tornado of the year so far, but also one of the most well-documented tornadoes in recorded history as well. With all that mind, I believe there is enough justification to keep this article and I don't see it as WP:TOOSOON. ChessEric23:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm going to change my position to "keeping" this article here, as long as we can work on it as a community since it does have a lot of issues. I don't think the WP:TOOSOON issues are that important in the context of this tornado, due to what is is said above. Wikiwillz (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is still substantial discussion ongoing we'll likely need to wait the full 7 days before closing the AFD, unless there's a full consensus here to end it. Wikiwillz (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Personally, I see no reason to delete it, and believe it doesn't match WP:TOOSOON. it is not to soon, the total distance between May 21st and July 13th (Time of me writing this) is around 53 days. I also think we do indeed, have enough information, just enough for the article to not be deleted. Gamerman-GPC (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There is a Digi.noarticle, 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."
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]
Sheesh, just redirect this junk to Ferdinand Marcos#Prime Minister and do the same with the rest of the mass-produced inauguration substubs. They do not need separate pages just because they happened, this can be covered perfectly well in the respective articles of the presidents. Reywas92Talk14:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Redirect and part mergeto2014–15 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]
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.
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-- Ponyobons mots17:57, 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. SportingFlyerT·C17:27, 4 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. SportingFlyerT·C19:30, 2 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.
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]
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]
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]
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]
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-- Ponyobons mots17:57, 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]
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]
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]
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. SportingFlyerT·C17:26, 4 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. SportingFlyerT·C05:50, 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. - ZLEAT\C21:33, 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]
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:NOTisWP: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. SportingFlyerT·C14:40, 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. SportingFlyerT·C19:34, 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]
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]
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, LizRead!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]
DeleteorMerge 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]
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]
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.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
jomhornews.com, 
m.kun.uz, 
trt.net.tr, and 
sport.kg. Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
