This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Sudan. 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:

1. 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.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Sudan|~~~~}} 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 Sudan. 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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sudan/archive

Jima Francis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This South Sudanese journalist does not appear to be notable under WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Sources in the article (or found in BEFORE search) are all his own writing ([1]) or sources affiliated with him and thus not independent ([2], [3], [4], [5]). Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Sudan. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Can't find significant coverage to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. Frank Ken (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Sudanese Air Force Antonov An-26 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Plane crash that fails WP:GNG. No continued coverage. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Sudan. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Typically we require LASTING coverage, but the fact this crash received major international coverage, did have continuing coverage for at least a day, crashed in a civilian area, and killed a couple high ranking army officers shows notability above and beyond a normal military plane crash, and I would expect further coverage in local sources in spite of the regional difficulties. SportingFlyer T·C 15:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You are wrong, just because it killed some sudanese officers doesn't mean that its notable. There is no coverage of this event past February 28. It has no lasting coverage and clearly fails WP:NOTNEWS. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now, per SportingFlyer and it is probably too early to delete. --hroest 16:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. Per WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. The article is basically only sourced to first-hand news reports with no subsequent analysis made on the event. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Having continued coverage for at least day is really not a sign of notability, especially when the coverage doesn't provide evidence of the event's notability. And based on the currently available sourcing, a standalone page is not warranted. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See though WP:EVENTCRIT #2: Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below). This was widely covered in diverse sources and had a widespread national impact with 46 people dead, mostly civilians, along with several ranking officers. This is common sense! SportingFlyer T·C 16:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Very likely to be notable" ≠ "Notable". WP:NOTNEWS also applies here. Just because an event was covered doesn’t mean it is automatically notable. "…especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." Could you point me to any sort of re-analysis? The event was tragic and was widely reported on at the time but there is no evidence of "enduring significance". Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There are 20 news articles in the story from around the world, and this happened a couple months ago during a war, so it's not surprising there aren't any clearly available retrospectives that are easily found during a search. I'll keep looking though. SportingFlyer T·C 06:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete until this becomes a WP:CASESTUDY or is otherwise determined by reliable sources to be worth covering beyond news reporting. A handful of people dying does not overrule the sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that is a misunderstanding of the guideline. If it becomes a case study, then it's likely notable. The guideline does not state that it needs to become a case study to be notable by other factors. MarioGom (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: in-depth and persistence coverage from multible reliable sources. FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you mind linking those sources? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  already in the article from BBC to local news. FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Wadi Seidna Air Base, where it is covered. All sources are from within a few days of the crash itself, and the outside world seems to have moved on. Tragic as this is, planes crash in wars kill civilians and officers. The sources we have don't demonstrate any lasting effects, but I assume there will be local coverage focussing on the aircrash's impact on local affairs, that is, its impacts on the base. (Or, will? Most newspapers in Sudan have been subject to heavy government censorship since the coup, and a plane crash killing civilians is one of those events that tends to get tidied away[6]. ) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 03:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]