Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 20 May 22 >

Purge server cache

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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa (Barbie)[edit]

Teresa (Barbie) (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)

Non-notable children's toy and fictional character. Article does not establish notability. Of the seven references present on the article at the moment:

  • Ref 1 is a YouTube video on a fan channel, probably a copyright violation, and is a primary source (it's a release trailer)
  • Refs 2 and 3 are primarily about other characters
  • Ref 4 is a picture of Barbie merchandise (primary source) hosted on Flickr
  • Refs 5, 6 and 7 are primary (barbie.com)

In my opinion, the article's prose makes no attempt to establish the notability of this character, and the references provided do not establish notability either. Adam Black t • c 23:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The sources found after my initial comment in addition to the one I already mentioned above seem to push Teresa into passing the WP:GNG. The article should be updated to replace the primary sourced "plot" content with the sourced analysis, but it does not appear that Deletion would be appropriate here. Rorshacma (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above doi links are all accessible via the WP:Library access. All that said, enough sources WP:NEXIST to establish her notability. The article can obviously be improved to incorporate some of this, but it does not need deletion. -2pou (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am convinced by the sources found by Rorshacma (at least a page of The Marketing of Toys) and 2pou (several pages in Barbie Culture). Barbie is important; people write about it. Toughpigs (talk) 23:00, 22 May 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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin English[edit]

Justin English (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 BLP appears to be of a reasonably successful but otherwise ordinary early-career professor. I can't find evidence of any of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria, nor biographical coverage for WP:GNG. Citations are decent (?) but I don't think it's enough for NACADEMIC#1. Note that the "award" listed -- "the NIH Director's New Innovation Award" -- does not satisfy NACADEMIC#2 since it's actually just grant funding, not a personal honor. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Biology. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, New York, North Carolina, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per nomination. He seems to have had a decent career so far and maybe will meet the notability criteria in the future, but I have to agree this article doesn't seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC at present. I noticed, though, that it was a successful AFC submission. It would be good to have the opinion of the editors involved in that process so pinging Eastmain (talk · contribs) and Qcne (talk · contribs). Adam Black t • c 00:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping @Adam Black GB. I felt it was borderline passing WP:NACADEMIC, and I guess I'm an inclusionist instead of an exclusionist when it comes to borderline articles. Happy to defer to consensus in this case. Qcne (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your work at AfC. For the record I do think it made sense to accept at AfC -- the article writing is solid and it's perfectly plausible that someone at this career stage could be notable (unlike a lot of AfC submissions about grad students/postdocs). I think AfC should lean inclusionist at the borderline. But when I looked at it with my NPP hat on, I felt like it merited a deletion discussion. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I added the primary sources tag during New Page Review when I didn't have time to review the citation record but hesitated to bring to AfD since it had just gone through AfC successfully. It is troublesome that so many sources in the piece are to his own writing/lab, including those purporting to evaluate his impact according to the NACADEMIC criteria. Upon further review this evening I agree with the nominator that there is not enough to support notability under GNG, NBIO or NACADEMIC at this time. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While quite impressive for an early career researcher, his citations are well below what would be expected of a notable academic in his subfield. 59/80 of his coauthors -- including students and techs, not only professors -- have a higher h-index than he has (8), and for NPROF C1 we would want to see someone who was in at least the top 20% of just the professors/senior researchers. I'm surprised this got through AfC. JoelleJay (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree with your conclusion, but that's a...strange rationale. At least, it's oriented towards very hierarchical disciplines. Why should someone have to build a big pool of lesser researchers around themselves in order to become notable? The goal should be to make one's own research as good as possible by working with other people who are as good as possible, and to push one's students to be as successful as possible, preferably even better than oneself. Instead, your criterion would judge people to be most successful when they surround themselves by lesser researchers, when their student coauthors are all failures who never go on to anything, so that those people stand out the most among them. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant in this specific case I would have needed to see him in the top 20% of his professor coauthors for me to reconsider him for C1. In subfields like his where papers can have many collaborators from diverse career stages and institutions, and for subjects with a clearly low citation profile, it's easier to justify thresholding at particular quintiles. If he had a more edge-case citation profile and was publishing exclusively with coauthors from one or two institutions I would of course incorporate more factors into my evaluation. JoelleJay (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:Too soon. Citations not really yet adequate in this highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. As usual, I am unimpressed by middle author (in a field where that matters) on highly coauthored and only moderately-cited papers. Looks WP:TOOSOON at best for NPROF. Little other sign of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The comments above citing WP:Too soon are spot on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlassian (talk • contribs) 21:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:Too soon not notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:12, 26 May 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.
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 The Vandals discography#Extended plays. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Vandals / Assorted Jelly Beans[edit]

The Vandals / Assorted Jelly Beans (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)

Non-notable split record. toweli (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Vandals discography#Extended plays: found no reliable coverage in digital archives. Assorted Jelly Beans is a redirect to a band member's article which doesn't even mention this split, and the target I chose appears to be the only place which does. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Vandals discography#Extended plays. I couldn't find reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 22:45, 27 May 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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthys Basson[edit]

Matthys Basson (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)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were trivial mentions, both in English and Japanese (search マティウス ・バッソン). JTtheOG (talk) 22:52, 21 May 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.
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 merge‎ to Amazon (company). I'm just going to assume the participants don't have that gadget installed and meant the redirect target. Feel free to merge to a different target instead though, since any editorial decisions made afterwards are no longer AfD's problem. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Live[edit]

Amazon Live (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP on its own, but I believe this could be merged into Amazon Inc. as a subsidiary. Deauthorized. (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. It's not possible to Merge this article with Amazon Inc. as this page is a Redirect. This should show up for you as a different colored font. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 21 May 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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bart Appiah[edit]

Anthony Bart Appiah (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage appears limited to breathless PR pieces, which use phrasing such as This masterclass is the brainchild of Prince Anthony Bart-Appiah a Royal [1]. Searching online, I was able to find one more substantial source of questionable value: [2]. Normally wedding announcements are considered routine press and do not contribute to notability, but this article offers an unusual amount of biographical depth. Still, it suffers from the same promotional tone, likely lack of independence, and questionable framing of a marriage to an elected politician in a republic (Panama) as if it were a political union of significant import. Overall, I think we fall short of the amount of credible, independent coverage needed to justify an article. signed, Rosguill talk 15:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing on Scholar, nothing on GBooks, nothing on JSTOR. I've removed claims that he initiated the Ghanaian government initiatives The Year of Return and Beyond the Return, as the cited source does not mention those and actually says only that he gave an online master-class on "Black Stories Matter" – which appears to be his only claim to fame. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete promotional profile with nothing to suggest notability. Mccapra (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
still don't understand how he is related to ghana nobility or royalty
needs a ton of fixing but i don't wish to disrespect the person that created this page thanks Briannemartindale (talk) 23:27, 22 May 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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Ackerman[edit]

Justin Ackerman (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)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were routine transactional announcements (1, 2). JTtheOG (talk) 22:26, 21 May 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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feli Ferraro[edit]

Feli Ferraro (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage is limited to passing mentions and professional profiles in non-independent sources. The listed song credits are misleading, as she is not the primary recording artist of any of them; professional songwriters do not typically receive the same level of coverage for their work, and should not be presumed notable on the basis of having collaborated on notable works in the absence of actual RS coverage about their influence on the work. Searching online did not turn up any coverage better than what is already cited. signed, Rosguill talk 16:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have to go with delete. I don't find any reasonable sources beyond what is here, and since the editor who created this works on and creates many articles for modern music I have to assume that what is here is the best that can be found. What I see in the sources here are mainly name checks. The only significant piece about her is on a site that I presume is that of her agents (Arthouse Entertainment). The "Genius" site that includes her in "best" lists is crowd-sourced and therefore not a reliable source. Lamona (talk) 02:05, 25 May 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.
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 7th Sky Entertainment#Current programmes. Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ehraam-e-Junoon[edit]

Ehraam-e-Junoon (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 TV drama fails to meet GNG as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage in RS. ROTM coverage like this, and namechecks like this is not enough to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - A WP:NTV series that meets WP:GNG, substantial sources, free images available on Google search. Rather than WP:AfD, should have been tagged for "Additional Citations".Sameeerrr (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]
    • Sameeerrr, NTV is an essay and you have to provide WP:THREE best coverage that you believe is sufficient to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't understand your approach of providing "THREE" best references. If we were supposed to provide the only three best references, then I wonder Wikipedia would have limited it WP:References section "To add Three Best sources" only. There's many citations available on search to improve the article. Sameeerrr (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 21 May 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.
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 no consensus‎. Editors, please add recently found sources to article. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Jankovski[edit]

Vladimir Jankovski (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)

BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article are a bios on a nomination pages, nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth from independent sources. BEFORE found nothing meeting SIGCOV with indepth coverage.  // Timothy :: talk  17:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The Macedonian article has two news items about him and confirms he won an award; the news appears to be in RS, I think this passes notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also a review of his book here [3]. The News link in the nomination header here brings up a few other articles about him in Macedonian media, and he's mentioned as a translator here [4] in a Maltese newspaper, showing some international reach. Oaktree b (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Winning/being nominated for a major award here meets WP:ANYBIO. I am more certain of SIGCOV especially when translators usually aren't given more details like a normal full-time writer. However, if the article was nomiated for such an award, then, there should be reviews of works somewhere. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:09, 24 May 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.
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. ✗plicit 23:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taichi Takahashi[edit]

Taichi Takahashi (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)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Japanese rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. This was the closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that I found, containing a handful of sentences of coverage, but no in-depth or sustained coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Japan. JTtheOG (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From the interview provided, his Japanese Wikipedia, and googling his Japanese name (高橋汰地) there looks to be enough here for WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the six sources in his Japanese article have any WP:SIGCOV. Feel free to present any new sources you found. JTtheOG (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Couple of lengthly profiles here and here. this, this and this all found just by googling his name. A more in depth search (perhaps by someone with better access to Japanese sourcing than myself as a lot is restricted here) will likely find more Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for presenting these. JTtheOG (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first one is from the JRFU (see the copyright at the bottom) and the second is by the same affiliate. The others just seem like routine reporting of press conferences without much independent contribution, especially the last one. JoelleJay (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sourcing seems restricted to routine coverage of press announcements and interviews rather than independent in-depth profiles. Not convinced the subject meets SPORTCRIT. JoelleJay (talk) 23:25, 21 May 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.
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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harish Kumar Gupta[edit]

Harish Kumar Gupta (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)

Resume vanity BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Appears to be mainly sourced from a LinkedIn resume and government bio page (both fail WP:IS, WP:RS), with other refs being routine mill news and name mentions. Government service awards are routine, not meeting WP:ANYBIO.  // Timothy :: talk  15:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Police, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Andhra Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Page reads as resume for job application. Things he did or delegated as correctional officer and none of it is a significant achievement and widely known to warrant a page on the subject. Fails WP:BIO and notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Head of the police of Andhra Pradesh, a major state of India. For those used to state police forces having a limited role, state police forces in India are huge and provide all policing in the state. Clearly notable and sources satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:02, 21 May 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.
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 keep‎. Star Mississippi 01:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arch of Dignity, Equality, and Justice[edit]

Arch of Dignity, Equality, and Justice (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)

Perhaps surprisingly, there are no independent sources to help this pass WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING. Sources listed are either to SJSU, which houses the arch, or to writings of the artist who created it. Additional sources found in WP:BEFORE search are also from SJSU or authored by artist Judy Baca. It gets trivial coverage in a few places (passing reference in a local paper and local visitor guide) but no significant, secondary coverage in independent, reliable sources. One AtD would be to merge any encyclopedic content to Paseo de César Chávez. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree that it's surprising that aren't more independent sources featuring the Arch. That being said, I was able to find a few independent sources discussing the Arch, namely:
- A publication from from the San Jose Museum of Art - here
- An article from the Social and Public Art Resource Center - here
- A feature on GPSmyCity - here
- An article by Mosaic Atlas - here (Admittedly, Mosaic Atlas is partnered with SJSU, but ostensibly they're an independent source)
Personally, I think the article should be kept, but adding the More citations needed template and incorporating the above sources. SammySpartan (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the SPARC piece during my search, but Judy Baca is a [of SPARC] and the author of the piece. It can't be independent. The GPSMyCity piece appears to be copied from an official SJSU page here. And the final piece published by SJSU cannot be independent when establishing notability of a structure at SJSU. With only the SJMoA piece you found, we still need more sources to get this over GNG or NBUILDING. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per new sources above, and an artwork is usually kept if the housing institution, gallery, museum, etc., has catalogued it in some form. This is a specific artwork, not a building, and already has enough to pass GNG related to Wikipedia visual arts pages. As for its value to Wikipedia, please note the navboxes which now include it and the benefit of including this artwork within them (the page and this discussion inspired the creation of the {{Dolores Huerta}} navbox, thanks Sammy Spartan and Dclemens1971). Randy Kryn (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the artwork is one of the few highly visible landmarks of the SJ public art scene. It has sources on its artistry, historical relevance to Cesar Chavez, and local relevance to San Jose. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Cristiano Tomás I agree with you that it is a highly visible landmark. @Randy Kryn I'd also like to find a way to keep it. But can you show any reliable, secondary, significant coverage that is independent of San Jose State University, the artist Judy Baca who made it, or of the organization she founded? Those sources are what I can't turn up, and that's what is required under policy for GNG and SNGs related to art/buildings. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a building, so building notability wouldn't apply. Visual art pages are usually accepted as established with sources from the holding museum or organization, in this case the University mentions would apply toward notability. And wouldn't the University mentions be secondary (primary would be the work itself)? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no SNG for artworks, so it has to pass GNG, which requires independent sources. Sources from the entity that commissioned the artwork (SJSU) and the artist who made it (Baca) cannot be independent from it for purposes of assessing notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No SNG for artworks? I thought there was and, if not, there should be as sourcing to a museum or gallery (which the University would qualify as) has been the standard and used as the sole source on maybe thousands of pages. Better call in (they may be tired of me calling upon their knowledge) Another Believer and Johnbod. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from that it would seem that the new sources added above, such as this from the San Jose Museum of Art, would qualify. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with new sources as previously stated. Additionally, speaking purely from an art history perspective here, Baca is clearly notable enough and this work is clearly prominent enough to merit inclusion.--19h00s (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion as even though there is a consensus to Keep and no support for deletion. But there is a valid concern about sourcing so hopefully more can be located over the next few days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 21 May 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.
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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Lewis (figure skater)[edit]

Chloe Lewis (figure skater) (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)

Fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator. I withdraw this nomination. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a useful short article on a skater who was successful in international junior skating tournaments; her best result was the Youth Olympics. Articles such as Figure skating at the Winter Youth Olympics work in their current format because there are articles on most of the medalists; there is therefore no need to say anything about the medalists in such articles. Deleting articles such as this one, through an over-zealous application of rules to borderline cases such as this one, has a detrimental effect on other articles.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, as mentioned below.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 1, consensus was to relist for further discussion. I will strike the sockpuppetry above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Previous votes failed to assess the article's sourcing. At the time of the nomination, it was sufficient to pass WP:GNG—namely this profile in the Oregonian and this briefer one in the Colorado Gazette. The nominator has also since said I felt my original nomination was flawed, given that GNG tops an SNG. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am unable to close this as a "speedy keep" because there are additional "delete" votes, but I would endorse this being closed as "keep". Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes GNG per the references provided by Hamelton. These in-depth profiles offer SIGCOV of the subject. Frank Anchor 00:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There's WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS and therefore the subject passes WP:GNG. TarnishedPathtalk 06:31, 22 May 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.
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 keep‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radiowv[edit]

Radiowv (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)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. All references are just passing mentions, not enough in-depth coverage for an article. Clearfrienda 💬 21:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The sources of the article provide the details on the founding, history, reach, cultural impact, and customers of the entity, which seems quite deep. The Tennessean, for example, describes the entity as a «tastemaker» within its musical genre. Anyway, the article sources include, so far:
    • CNN
    • American Songwriter
    • Variety
    • The Atlantic
    • The Tennessean
    • Billboard
    • Pulitzer-award winning SFGate
    • News Corp Australia
    Have we ever deleted an article with such blue-chip sourcing from multiple years and internationally coming from multiple continents spanning the globe? XavierItzm (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of these references offer in-depth coverage which is essential to meet WP:GNG. The Tennessean article is about Oliver Anthony's new song, not the YouTube channel, and only briefly mentions it. All the other sources are the same: brief mentions in articles mainly about the song. This does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Some of them don't mention the channel at all. I'd recommend merging it into another article because some information is useful but it doesn't warrant its own Wikipedia article.
    Also, XavierItzm, if you have "a vested interest in the article," (e.g. you created the article) make sure to disclose it before participating in the AfD discussion (see WP:AVOIDCOI).
    Clearfrienda 💬 02:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have stated an absolute falsehood: «Some of them don't mention the channel at all» [the references] and I would kindly ask that you retract that falsehood. On the contrary, each and every single source in the article cites Radiovw by name, as can be readily checked in the Refs section of the article.

Yeah, I created that article and I’ve created numerous articles across various Wikipedia projects totaling about 21,000 edits since 2014, including 54 articles in the en.wikipedia alone. As an amateur editor, this is the first time anyone asks if I have a COI, so I guess this is sort of like a new badge of honour for me? As a retired guy since a long time ago, I have zero COIs on the Wikipedia project. XavierItzm (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some articles don't mention the subject. This The Atlantic article does not mention the channel, for example. What's actually important is the lack of significant coverage of the channel. The majority of mentions in references are trivial — the references aren't "about" the channel, they just mention it briefly. For an article to meet GNG, it has to have significant coverage. Significant coverage is not trivial mentions (see WP:TRIVIAL). Some references are slightly more than trivial, but are still just brief mentions.
You do have a conflict of interest at this AfD discussion because you clearly have a "vested interest in the article" (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_contribute). That's not a problem but it's generally policy to disclose it so you don't mislead other participants.
Snarky remarks aren't helping.
Clearfrienda 💬 03:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Atlantic article[1] is used to establish the styling of the script for Radiowv (which was the subject of discussion on the TP). And yes, the Atlantic article does use the style RadioWV in a caption and it is a proper use of a source for a debated detail of the article (to wit, the sources use three different stylings: Radiowv, RadioWV and radiowv). The one source you are arguing about and which mistakenly you cited using plural (as if you had found multiple instances of that of which you actually found none) does mention Radiowv in writing!, thus refuting your false assertion: «Some articles don't mention the subject»

Your lack of contrition and refusal to acknowledge your stated 100% false assertion is troubling and the closer should take note.XavierItzm (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what your point is. A credit in a photo caption does not help to prove notability. It doesn't matter if a reference doesn't mention the subject if you're using it to back up information. We're talking about notability here, though. For an article to meet the general notability guidelines it needs significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. I don't see how Radiowv meets this criteria with no in-depth coverage anywhere and a few brief, often completely trivial, mentions in other articles. Do you have any examples of references that help meet this criteria? Because right now other participants see no evidence of actually proving notability and instead just see useless arguing. I'd be happy to help if you need it.
Please stop with the uncivil attacks and start actually contributing to the discussion.
Clearfrienda 💬 16:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Friedersdorf, Conor. "The Misguided Debate Over "Rich Men North of Richmond"". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 18 August 2023. Retrieved 20 August 2023. Oliver Anthony / RadioWV [from photo caption]
  2. ^ Wickstrom, Matt (1 December 2023). "How RadioWV, the Platform That Helped Launch Oliver Anthony, is Providing an Outlet for Appalachian Songwriters". Wide Open Country. Retrieved 16 May 2024.
  3. ^ Chris Dickerson (13 December 2023). "Defendant files counterclaim in 'Rich Men North of Richmond' case". West Virginia Record. Retrieved 16 May 2024.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion as there is no consensus. By now, I've closed thousands of AFDs and while article creators sometimes self-identify, I don't think it is mandatrory or a COI. If anyone who created or edited an article has a COI then so does the editor seeking its deletion. And don't accuse another editor of being "snarky" when you yourself or making irrelevant accusations. Anyone is free to participate in an AFD except sockpuppets and a few editors with editing restrictions so let's focus on arguments and not personalities.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't see any coverage that is unrelated to Oliver Anthony, but I'm also not certain that such coverage is necessary. The "Wide Open Country" reference from XavierItzm, while clearly motivated by Anthony, substantially discusses other aspects of radiowv. As Oliver Anthony isn't a reasonable redirect target, my vote is to keep. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The cited WOC above is only one source, but [5] is another, which according to WP:MULTSOURCES should be enough to establish notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've checked citation [2] again, and it indeed doesn't go in-depth, despite its title. However, I believe the actually significant article I've provided and all the trivial mentions add up to provide this outlet some borderline notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing is about this channel that I can find, it's all about the gentleman and his song. Trivial mentions don't help notability. Even with what's now in the article, it's all a one-liner explaining what the channel is, in articles about other things. There is nothing extensive in any sourcing about this channel. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources cited are adequate to support the notability of the subject. The fact that a news source is "regional" has no bearing on its reliability; most news sources are regional, and countless notable topics fail to achieve national coverage. A "passing" or "trivial" mention isn't one that discusses one topic in relation to another; it's literally a drive-by name-dropping, and that's not what these sources provide. The article may be in need of cleanup, but deletion is not cleanup. P Aculeius (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AUD says that regional coverage cannot be used for notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should reread the section you linked me to, which says the opposite. P Aculeius (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WVR is a weekly legal publication. The biggest WV newspaper would probably be the Charleston Gazette Aaron Liu (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your statement was that "regional coverage cannot be used for notability", and that's explicitly contradicted by the linked section of the notability guideline. Although it gives "the largest newspaper in a state" as an example, that can hardly be regarded as a comprehensive list of acceptable regional sources (by that logic, in Pennsylvania you would have to choose between news from Philadelphia or Pittsburgh; in Ohio, between Columbus, Cincinnati, or Cleveland, etc.). The Herald-Dispatch has a circulation comparable to that of the Charleston Gazette, and there are other papers of significance in the region—just in West Virginia, Parkersburg and Morgantown come to mind as having important papers.
    While the West Virginia Record is indeed a legal paper, it's neither a small-town paper or one of "limited interest and circulation", as described by the policy, which gives as an example "a newsletter exclusively for people with a very unusual job". That hardly describes a legal newspaper covering the entire state—it's not something that could be fairly described as a "newsletter", nor is its readership exclusive to "people with a very unusual job"; I don't think that describes the legal profession, or the business community, very well—although I would certainly prefer coverage in papers such as the Charleston Gazette or Herald-Dispatch.
    The article also cites a number of national and regional sources beyond West Virginia: The Tennessean, The Atlantic, CNN. While their coverage may focus on the specifics of a legal case or individual singers, they provide a bit more than mere "trivial coverage" or "passing mentions" of the channel. Taken together with the other materials, I conclude that the topic meets the minimum threshold for notability, and thus the article should be kept. P Aculeius (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can someone give me a link to the WP:THREE here? My perusal of what's currently on the article largely looks like someone trying to piggy-back coverage centered around one of their artists rather than significant coverage on the subject itself. Sergecross73 msg me 11:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure thing: Rolling Stone, in an article authored by blue-linked David Browne (journalist) sez: «RadioWV, a YouTube channel devoted to off-the-grid country and folk singers in and around Appalachia [...] Around five years ago, Riffe co-founded RadioWV, the YouTube channel devoted to the type of woodsy, unadorned country songs [...] When Riffe heard [...he...] wanted to film Anthony singing for RadioWV [...] 85 million views [on RadioWV], compared with the roughly 100,000 maximum of most RadioWV posts [...] RadioWV alumni, like Nolan Taylor, who recently signed a deal with Atlantic Records». Now, the problem with this Rolling Stone article is that it only mentions RadioWV in passing 5 times, telling us what it is, what it does, its geographic area of sourcing, its date of founding, its founder, its musical style, how it came across its biggest star, how many people watch its average videos and some of its greatest hits, some of its "alumni", and which labels some of the RadioWV alumni have signed up with.[1] So definitively this article is not the best sourcing. For that you would have to look at the two articles cited above, which are both WP:INDEPTH articles written solely and exclusively about RadioWV: [2][3]. Those would be your WP:THREE, leaving out, of course, CNN, American Songwriter, Billboard, SFGate, etc., which are among the 18 refs in the article. XavierItzm (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, I'm having a hard time formulating a keep stance here. The Wide Open Country source is significant coverage, but I'm not familiar with whether or not its a reliable source. I've never heard of it, and its not listed at WP:RSMUSIC (which isn't required, I just mean I don't have any reference point on it yet.) The Rolling Stones stuff, like much of what's used in the article, is just passing mentions in an article largely about Oliver Anthony. The West Virginia Record is really more about the legal issues some of its people are entangled in. Sergecross73 msg me 17:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI think the WideOpenCountry article sways it for me, along with the passing coverage and the fact they have got some attention from previous artists publishing on there, just passes WP:GNG, but it's borderline. I can't really see anywhere else to merge/redirect this to, which would by my preference here, and for me it doesn't fall to the level to support deletion, so keep it is. Mdann52 (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ DAVID BROWNE (17 November 2023). "Oliver Anthony Became a Symbol of Populist Rage. The Truth Is More Complex". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 16 May 2024. RadioWV, a YouTube channel devoted to off-the-grid country and folk singers in and around Appalachia […] RadioWV alumni, like Nolan Taylor, who recently signed a deal with Atlantic Records
  2. ^ Wickstrom, Matt (1 December 2023). "How RadioWV, the Platform That Helped Launch Oliver Anthony, is Providing an Outlet for Appalachian Songwriters". Wide Open Country. Retrieved 16 May 2024.
  3. ^ Chris Dickerson (13 December 2023). "Defendant files counterclaim in 'Rich Men North of Richmond' case". West Virginia Record. Retrieved 16 May 2024.
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.
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 keep‎. User:Oaktree b may well be right, but this AfD did not come about in the proper way, to put it mildly, and we don't need AfDs clouded by suspicions of paid editing and misrepresentation. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manav Bhinder[edit]

Manav Bhinder (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)

The filmmaker, Manav Bhinder, was initially unaware of his Wikipedia page. The page was recently vandalized and subsequently protected for a few days. However, Mr. Bhinder has since expressed a clear desire for privacy and has requested that the page be removed to respect his wishes.

Manav Bhinder has reviewed the article on "Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects" suggested by one of the user and is now convinced that Wikipedia can handle vandalism. Therefore, he no longer wishes to proceed with the deletion and would like to withdraw the nomination for this page. 

Pradeepsethi.in (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please ask Mr. Bhinder to read Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects and take action (or decline to take action) accordingly. Gottagotospace (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Manav Bhinder has reviewed the recommended article on "Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects", and is now convinced that Wikipedia can handle vandalism. Therefore, he no longer wishes to proceed with the deletion of the article. Pradeepsethi.in (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pradeepsethi.in We have no idea whi you are, nir any evidence of any delegated authority by Bhinder. For all we know you are unconnected and making mischief. Bhinder should approach WP:VRT himself, directly, and make his personal case there. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Setting aside any notability in the article and focussing solely on the deletion rationale, I see nothing to suggest that Wikipedia accede to the nominator's request. Manav Bhinder must make his own case correctly according to the advice given above. There is absolutely no proof that the nominator is acting on Bhinder's behalf. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What kind of proof or evidence do I need to provide to demonstrate that I am acting on Bhinder's behalf? He is not comfortable editing wikipedia pages to raise a request, which is why he asked me to represent him. Pradeepsethi.in (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Regardless of the request above, I don't find sourcing about this individual that would meet GNG. Article is sourced to imdb and stories about other people where this person is mentioned. I don't find coverage we'd use to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:52, 22 May 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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meyer Swanepoel[edit]

Meyer Swanepoel (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)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were routine transactional announcements (1, 2). JTtheOG (talk) 21:35, 21 May 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.
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 keep‎. after article expansion and improvement. Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Command information newspaper[edit]

Command information newspaper (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 really exists (type of internal publication within the US military), but it is questionable if it is notable. While various reliable sources mention it in passing (while discussing something said in some particular issue of one of these), I can't find any significant coverage of the concept in itself. Wikipedia is not a repository of all the internal minutiae of how the US military (or any other military in the world) works. PROD contested by User:Kvng SomethingForDeletion (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment is a soft redirect to Wiktionary an option here? This is just a definition, and there is no evidence that will change. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently, there is no Wiktionary entry for "command information newspaper". Of course, you (or anybody else) could always create one. However, that Wiktionary entry might then be subject to Wiktionary's own review processes to determine whether its inclusion is appropriate. I think it is a bit problematic creating a soft redirect to a Wiktionary entry which doesn't currently exist, and I don't know whether under Wiktionary's own inclusion criteria it would accepted. (My undereducated guess is they probably would decide to keep, but I don't think we should presume that here.) SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Article has been expanded and several sources have been added. Most compelling coverage in independent secondary sources include this 2005 opinion piece in Newsday, "Truth is first casualty of war reporting", which describes the command information newspaper Observer during the Vietnam War, and this 1990 article in The Leaf-Chronicle, "101st Media Personnel To Produce Information Newspaper For Troops", which looks at command information newspapers produced by the 101st Airborne Division during three wars (World War II, Vietnam War, Operation Desert Shield). @Kvng: Ping. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per improvements and sources added by Cielquiparle. Thank you! ~Kvng (talk) 14:45, 26 May 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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt More[edit]

Matt More (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)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 21:30, 21 May 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.
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 Nuyorican. Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nuyorican rap[edit]

Nuyorican rap (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)

I couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:N. Unreferenced so I am not proposing a merge, though a redirect is a possible WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article on Nuyorican rap should be considered carefully before nomination for deletion, as it addresses a unique and influential subset of hip hop culture. However, the decision should also weigh the availability of verifiable sources and the overall notability of the subject as per Wikipedia’s guidelines. --Improvised but so real unicorn (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Didn’t want to substantially rewrite what is here, since that’s a big change, but the added sources and the general coverage of the issue indicate that “Nuyorican rap” is interchangeable with “Nuyorican hip-hop.” This might be worth noticing in the body of the article, and is definitely worth keeping in mind when looking for other sources to continue improving this article. “Nuyorican rap” didn’t return as many solid sources as “Nuyorican hip-hop,” possibly due to the fact that the apex of the genre was the late 90’s, early ‘00’s, when hip-hop was a more commonly used term. Ruth Bader Yinzburg (talk)
  • Redirect to Nuyorican. The refs aren't here to support the article. Desertarun (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I see no consensus here, even on a Redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 21 May 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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lakhan Kumar Singla[edit]

Lakhan Kumar Singla (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)

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Literally nothing to establish notability here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:27, 21 May 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.
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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ SL93 (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Planet (novel)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rogue Planet (novel) (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)

I found nothing that shows notability. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Comment': As for the sources shown in the first AFD - Starwars.com is not independent of the subject which is three of the links, Denver Science Fiction and Fantasy Book Club is unreliable (and about a different book), and SFsite is unreliable. SL93 (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. SL93 (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep due to the sources found by User:Cunard in newspapers. I'm not at all versed in the Star Wars universe so it is possible this could be merged with one or more appropriate lists. I found one sort of substantial review: O'Connor, Michael G. "STAR WARS NOVEL LACKS FORCE TO DELIVER GOODS." Winston-Salem Journal [Winston-Salem, NC], 30 July 2000, p. A20. Gale General OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A63765955/ITOF. It pans the book, but it is still about it. Publisher's Weekly lists it as a best seller over a number of issues. This is from Entertainment Weekly but it looks like various publications pick up the PW list: “`Rogue’ Warrior.” 2000. Entertainment Weekly, no. 542 (May): 69.(Yes, this says "Warrior" instead of "Planet" but it is about the Rogue Planet book.) I didn't find reviews in Kirkus or Library Journal. This is thin for a free-standing article about a book. Lamona (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. Powell, Joseph (2000-06-06). "'Rogue Planet' adds little to 'Star Wars saga. Color in scenery, not characters". The Cincinnati Enquirer. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Set three years after the events of Episode 1, Rogue Planet follows Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi and his young Padawan (Jedi apprentice) Anakin Skywalker as they search for a missing Jedi Knight and a mystery planet, rumored to be the home of the fastest ships in the galaxy. ... But die-hard fans might be disappointed. Rogue Planet is full of sizzling light sabers, dizzying locales and action that is vintage Star Wars, but it doesn't expand the horizons of this space opera."

    2. Beem, Scott (2000-10-04). "Star Wars: Rogue Planet". The Mt. Zion Region-News. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "The writer introduces some coolness: living ships and sentient planets, but is unable to explore them in any detail. seems choppy and hurried. The writing at times; less than fluid. Again I can only assume that the Star Wars series editors had a certain format they insisted upon. Too bad, really. One wonders what Greg Bear might have done, but then Star Wars isn't really his style. He's probably laughing all the way to the bank, as Lucas has so many times."

    3. O'Connor, Michael G. (2000-07-30). "Star Wars novel lacks force to deliver goods". Winston-Salem Journal. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "And the story lacks a Star Wars staple: action. Only at the end do things get really interesting, and even then Anakin and Obi-Wan seem to be mostly out of the action. And the big battle fizzles with a lame and implausible conclusion. Bear does triumph on once score: He successfully ties Rogue Planet into the tight Star Wars chronology, linking events in this story to later ones. His subtlety keeps the reader guessing through most of the novel, and his descriptions give a clearer vision of what the next Star Wars movie will be about."

    4. Modi, Parth (2000-10-01). "'Rogue Planet' is Episode 1.5". Florida Today. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "One of the newest books to enter the saga is Rogue Planet by Greg Bear. This story takes place between the recently made "Episode 1" and the eagerly anticipated "Episode 2." It has, in fact, been touted as "Episode 1.5." ... I found that while the writing is excellent, the most appealing part of this book is that it fits in with the rest of the Star Wars saga so well. This book is a wonderful read for all science fiction readers as well."

    5. Hunt, Stephen (2000-08-22). "Bear caught in star warp trap". North Yorkshire County Publications. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25.

      The review notes: "The problem is Bear is constrained from writing a novel of serious impact by his central characters. ... Where Bear's genius glimmers through is in the setting and the supporting characters, where he can give his imagination free rein - and that's when the novel really becomes a page-turner. Certainly one of the better Star Wars novels and, better yet, no Jar-Jar Binks."

    6. Douglas (2000-07-15). "After Phantom, a galactic Rogue". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25.

      The review notes: "But while Rogue Planet is published under the copyright of George Lucas' Lucasfilm, it is still a book, written by the award-winning science fiction writer Bear. ... I have to confess that it has been many years since I have read a science fiction novel, and Rogue Planet is certainly not one that is written in the Booker Prize winning style that I aspire to read now. But Bear has a straightforward way with words that is almost imagist in its effect."

    7. Buker, Derek M. (2002). Science Fiction and Fantasy Readers' Advisory. Chicago: American Library Association. p. 98. ISBN 0-8389-0831-4. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Rogue Planet by Greg Bear Young Anakin Skywalker has been apprenticed to be a Jedi Knight under the training of Obi Wan Kenobi for the last few years since the events chronicled in Episode I: The Phantom Menace. Although he is a gifted student, lately Anakin has grown restless with his studies at the Jedi Temple and has taken to sneaking off to take part in dangerous races. Hoping to harness the boy’s energy, the Jedi Council assigns Obi Wan and Anakin to look into the disappearance of another Jedi on the mysterious planet Zonama Sekot. What they find is a world of mystery and danger whose inhabitants “grow” wonderful spacecraft. What the pair doesn’t know is that three different factions are closing in on Zonama Sekot with the purpose of stealing the technology to grow organic spacecraft. And they’ll eliminate anyone in the way to get it."

    8. Less significant coverage:
      1. Maryles, Daisy (2000-05-15). "behind the bestsellers". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 247, no. 20. p. 24. EBSCOhost 3218614.

        The article notes: "A brand-name newcomer--Star Wars: Rogue Planet by Greg Bear from Del Rey/Lucas-Books--continues to please and after one week on sale, went back to press for a second printing, bringing the total in print to 193,000. The author is finishing an eight-city tour. "

      2. Barron, Neil; Barton, Tom; Burt, Daniel S.; Hudak, Melissa; Meredith, D. R.; Ramsdell, Kristin; Schantz, Tom; Schantz, Enid (2001). What Do I Read Next?, 2001. Volume 1 : A Reader's Guide to Current Genre Fiction. Detroit: Gale. p. 762. ISBN 0-7876-3391-7. ISSN 1052-2212. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Internet Archive.

        The book notes: "Summary: Obi-Wan and Anakin are sent to the distant and largely unknown planet of Zonama Selot, whose people build the fastest starships in the galaxy. They cross paths with Wilhuff Tarkin, an ambitious military officer, who wants to make use of the planet's advanced technology to create an irresistible military force."

      3. Pringle, David, ed. (June 2001). "Rogue Planet". Interzone. No. 168. p. 63. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Internet Archive.

        The article notes: "Bear, Greg. Rogue Planet. “Star Wars.” Arrow/Lucas Books, ISBN 0-09-941030-3, 341 pp, A-format paperback, £5.99. (Sf movie spinoff novel, first published in the USA, 2000; it seems Mr Bear will turn his hand to anything, in this case a novel about the boyhood exploits of George Lucas’s space-opera character Annakin Skywalker; it’s dedicated to, among others, “Jack, and Ed, and Doc Smith,” which shows the right spirit.) 70th May 2001."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Rogue Planet to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The newspaper reviews that Cunard found demonstrate notability for the book. Toughpigs (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Lamona What do you think of the new sources? I can withdraw the deletion discussion of you think this should be kept. SL93 (talk) 21:30, 25 May 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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statsmodels[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Statsmodels (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 article was deleted and then recreated. I can't find anything on the talk page or the edit history that justifies recreating this article. Independently, this article should be deleted because it doesn't meet WP: N. I found some self-published tutorials that use statsmodels for a particular purpose, but this does not meet the standard for reliability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you clarify for me the standard by which, say, scipy meets notability? Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that relevant to the discussion for this AfD? HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as an example so I can understand better the standards by which notability for a software package might be determined in general. By at least some standards it seems to me that statsmodels is certainly notable, for instance the Seabold-Perktold article "Statsmodels: Econometric and Statistical Modeling with Python" has been cited on Google Scholar almost 5000 times. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally try to follow Wikipedia:Notability_(software) -- that paper wouldn't establish notability because it's written by the authors, but its citations might. If you can find citations that are independent of the author and discuss the library in-depth (as opposed to a simple mention of "we have X problem and we use the statsmodel library to solve it"), please add them to the article, and I'd be happy to withdraw the AfD. If an AfD results in the improvement of an article, I have no issue with that. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, just a note that Soft Deletion is not an option here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Did a quick Google search, didn't find any significant coverage. Niafied (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Github and their own website are about the best sources I can pull up, nothing which is useful for notability. There are no software reviews or any kind of coverage. Delete for lack of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 00:55, 22 May 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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Corcoran[edit]

Angela Corcoran (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is not enough SIGCOV for her to meet GNG. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage is routine. Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 03:15, 23 May 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.
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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Collins[edit]

Conor Collins (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)

Although this biography has many references, is it actually notable? Does making art that gain media attention due to their provactive notions create sufficient notability? No inbound links. No awards. No wider coverage that I can see. Seaweed (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, Politics, Sexuality and gender, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: More than enough good RS, 3, 4 and 6 are the first ones I pulled up and they're about this individual. I suppose GNG is met, I'm unsure if they meet artistic notability, but they've been talked about enough by others, so that we can also include them here in wiki under general notability. Call it a cultural oddity curiosity I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've looked through most of the sources that could be considered reliable, and none are significant coverage that I see. The "Time" source,[6] for example, is just three sentences and an embedded instagram post. Elspea756 (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: sources 3 and 4 are good, as is source 15 (a reminder that BuzzFeed News is different from BuzzFeed and is reliable). Source 19 even describes the subject as "award-winnning". Toadspike [Talk] 07:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To respond to SportingFlyer below, I think it's clear that the GNG has been met. For us to decide that people who get excessive media attention for provocative stunts need to meet some higher bar would require an RfC, or for someone to point me to some hidden policy/guideline I've never read. The media is biased toward this stuff, and, for better or for worse, we rely on the media to source our articles and determine what's notable. Toadspike [Talk] 11:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure, honestly. There's lots of sources - too many, really - in the article talking about his art, because his art is provocative, but many of them are just links to self-promotion on social media. The article needs a good cleanup, too. I don't really see any critical coverage of him, though, that I would expect to see from an artist. Don't really want to delete, but am leaning delete. SportingFlyer T·C 19:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I must admit I'm a bit confused about biographical articles about artists sometimes. I mean, if your life is about creating artworks, when do you become notable? It's fine if that's your career and livelihood, but when does make you notable for an encyclopedia? Where is the line? I think it's also fair to say that a key feature of the artistic world is about awards, prizes, grants etc. It's quite commonplace. Therefore I do wonder sometimes if we give undue weight to artist who has this award or nominated for that award. I'm also a bit concerned that too much weight is placed on media mentions to justify a Wikipedia article. To be fair, I do find it hard work to read all the Wikipedia policies sometimes, but I suppose that's my problem. In summary, I'm still not convinced that Conor Collins is notable enough for Wikipedia. Failing that, it's definitely too detailed. Seaweed (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I don't see notability here either. The notability guideline for artists is WP:ARTIST. It is basically that there needs to be multiple reliable independent sources that devote significant coverage to the artist, or that the artist is widely cited by their peers, has been a significant part of a significant exhibition, their work is in the permanent collections of multiple major museums, things like that. I am not seeing anything like that here, it's all just insignificant WP:ROUTINE coverage of minor run-of-the-mill events, like that "this drawing of a celebrity by a local artist got several thousand likes on twitter." Elspea756 (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's sort of my thinking as well. Most articles include links back to his social media account, making it a question as to whether he's been truly independently noticed in my book. It's clear he's getting noticed, but this may just be WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 17:54, 27 May 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.
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 keep‎. Star Mississippi 01:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne Silva[edit]

Corinne Silva (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)

Not sure if this biography is notable. No references. No pages linked. Never quite sure with artists where notability lies. Don't think so in this case. Seaweed (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm guessing this is either an autobiography or other type of COI creation by a gallery that shows her work due to the entirely unsourced article containing many details about her. A WP:BEFORE search found a review of her work in Financial Times:[7], but almost everything else I have found so far seems to be gallery PR, social media, an interview[8] (primary source that doesn't count towards notability because no editorial content), a book review on F-stop magazine's blog,[9], database listings, press releases. I also found an online artist project for which she took the photos[10]. The Wikipedia Library found an in-depth article by TJ Demos in Photoworks Journal [11] (you might have to log into WP:LIB to read it). What seems to be missing are a track record of art reviews by critics or art historians, works in museum collections, so I don't think she meets NARTIST, but I think she may meet GNG. Holding off on !voting for now, as I'd like to hear feedback from others who edit in the visual arts/photography area. Netherzone (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I had marked this for notability in 2021. I was in the middle of another task, and did not get back to clean-up/delete. No improvement made to article. Notability tag removed by SPA without adding a single reference. I am not finding any RS to confirm claims made in the article. Fails WP:ARTIST. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Keep - Changing vote to keep per WP:HEY. I rewrote the lede becasue we still don't have a birth year or place and the second sentence was artspeak, not supported by the citation. I also think the unsourced last paragraph of shows should be removed. Only to be returned with sourcing. Article has changed from an artist statement to an article. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Everything about it leaves a bad taste. Nowhere near statisfying WP:GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is nothing more than a artist statement and bio. Complete with the empty "art speak". This has no business being on wikipedia. Steelyphilly (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: As the article has rewritten I flip my vote to Keep. Thank you@Netherzone for your research! I still think that artist statements have no business being on here! Steelyphilly (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – A thorough WP:BEFORE finds that she clearly meets WP:GNG. While in the early stages of her career as an artist who works in the genre of environmental photography and socially aware photography, her work has indeed received critical/analytical coverage that one would expect a notable artist to have. While she does not yet meet WP:NARTIST, there is enough WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources that she solidly meets the general notability guideline. I invite WomenArtistUpdates, MaskedSinger and Steelyphilly to consider the in-depth reliable sources that have been found:
  • Journal article by Caruso, Martina. 2019. "Conversing with Ghosts of the Previously Tamed: lens-based media technologies and non-human animals in the work of Christoph Keller, Corinne Silva and Basma Alsharif" in ESPACE art actuel ‘Point de vue animal/Animal Point of View’, no. 121 (Winter), pp. 28 – 33.
  • Book chapter on her work in: “Photography Reframed: New Visions in Contemporary Photographic Culture.” Editors: Ben Burbridge, Annebella Pollen, the chapter by Chad Elias is on her work: “Landscape Photography's 'New Humanism”, pages 175-186. ISBN 9781784538828, I.B. Tauris (I was able to view on Google Books)
  • Her book, “Garden State”, in addition to the review by Hans Durrer in F-Stop Magazine’s blog [12] linked above, there is this review: 2016 Book review: Corinne Silva: Garden State, by Francesca Laura Cavallo, Camera Austria, Issue 135 [13]
  • In addition to the twelve-page spread by TJ Demos linked above, (2012) Spaces of Global Capital: On the Photography of Corinne Silva & Jason Larkin, TJ Demos, Photoworks 19, ISBN 9781903796368,[14] there is this review: [15], this review [16], this interview: [17],
The article need to be rewritten, probably pruned back to a short stub with proper citations. Netherzone (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough. i will take a look. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
indeed. I added three of the refs above to the article. Still not finding any biographical information that can be used in the article. I will continue looking. I can't get past the FT paywall. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WomenArtistUpdates, Financial Times has a really strong paywall~! I can't get back in on Safari even after clearing my cookies. I tried accessing it on Firefox and got it at: [18] I copied the text from the article and will email it to you where you can read it offline if you can't access it thru an alternative browser. If I post it here it will be a COPYVIO. Netherzone (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Netherzone. I changed my !vote. Thanks for digging deeper. I could not see beyond poorly written article originally presented. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:25, 23 May 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.
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. Star Mississippi 01:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Entertainment[edit]

Green Entertainment (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)

Subject is a recently-launched Pakistani TV channel which seems to have evolved from a YouTube channel some time in 2023. The article has very little content other than a list of the channel's shows, many of which are former articles deleted for lack of notability, and/or for being repeatedly recreated under different titles by socks of Nauman335, a committed sockpuppeteer or possibly a network of related individuals who give the impression they are being paid to promote the channel. They have formed a sort of walled garden with circular notability: the channel is notable because of its roster of notable shows, but the shows are notable because they're on the notable network. In reality, the sourcing is extremely weak: routine coverage, obvious press releases, and/or passing mentions in articles about the shows or about Pakistani television in general. I did not find any better sources in a brief Google search, just more of the same press releases and passing mentions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've been on a bit of a deletion spree with articles about TV shows from this channel, so normally I'd support this deletion nomination. But I think it would be unfair to this encyclopedia, and not just the channel, to not have an article about a channel that's part of the military's ISPR. This channel might actually meet the basic GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know what ISPR was (it's the Inter-Services Public Relations, the media wing of the Pakistan Armed Forces) and that's not indicated in the article. I'm not sure that lends itself to notability (per WP:NOTINHERITED) but might be a lead on better sourcing. I don't have time to check at the moment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably something that would be useful to the article in general. The second source [19] seems to be the one decent source in the article and does mention that the channel is backed by ISPR. I think this gives a possible option to redirect the article to Inter-Services Public Relations and add a blurb paragraph that they launched Green Entertainment with the date and anything else from the lead and call it done. Ravensfire (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick web search turned up nothing really useful. The best I could find was [20], but I'm not convinced that's a reliable source. Otherwise, some social media / forum mentions and articles with a list of shows but not any in depth coverage of the channel itself. I'm leaning to Merge to ISPR at this point. Ravensfire (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That does seem like a workable approach. We don't have the sourcing for a separate article, but what info we do have could be merged to the ISPR article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm looking at the sources for something that focus on the company Green Entertainment and has in-depth coverage of the company, and it's just not there in the article. The SomethingHaute article is quite probably churnalism from a press-release and even then doesn't have actual in-depth coverage of Green Entertainment. WP:BROADCAST is the notability essay that best fits here and highlights the need for sources for the company itself. I think it is likely this should be notable, but we need the sources that actually backs up that it is notable. Unsurprisingly, there's a lot of interest from the Nauman335 sockfarm in this article, but it's mainly about the shows, not the channel. As an alternative to deletion, I would be okay with moving to Draft but move protecting it to force an AFC review (and semi-protecting at least the main article space name). Ravensfire (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ravensfire, But, just because we're unable to keep an eye on this page doesn't automatically mean we should trash it. I don't really spot any blatant PROMO happening in the article itself. The real issue seems to be with articles on TV shows, not so much with this one about the channel itself. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Show the sources that support WP:GNG or WP:NCORP for the channel itself. That is 100% what's needed for an article to stay on Wikipedia. Are there reliable sources that support this being a notable subject? They aren't in the article that I can see. Easy solution - find them and add them. Ravensfire (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, please do read WALLEDGARDEN. This page is exactly the issue. That aside, references do not meet ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I had to take a step back to evaluate this since I have been so ingrained with sock reverts and UPE associated with this sock farm. I just assumed notability as it has numerous shows with Wikipedia pages but did not take WALLEDGARDEN into consideration. Many of the pages that were listed here are now deleted or up for deletion and searching online, the references I do find fail WP:NCORP. A lot of announcements about shows which verify they exist but verifiability is not notability. Also a ton of NEWSORGINDIA. I will place a bet now that this AfD will also be consumed with IPs, SPAs, and likely SOCKS in 3...2..1...--CNMall41 (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG as we have at least two in-depth references about it. First of all, this is a very important topic, as the channel is operated by the ISPR (I concur with Saqib). Initially, they launched it as an ISPR-operated channel, so Youlin etc covered as such but since then public sentiment has changed in Pakistan and it is negative against military due to their interference in politics and media. So now the military is trying to hide this relationship using different proxy companies - they don't want to fail this project. In any case, we shouldn't censor this information. To best my knowledge, Youline is a perfectly reliable quality reference and it is wrong to assume that it is generally without any consensus - if any of you have some examples of wrong reporting from them then present it on WP:RSN. Just because Wikipedia doesn't consider it as a notable topic doesn't mean Youlin is unreliable now - I'm reinstating the content removed recently. So we have one in-depth article in Youline ([21]) and second in-depth article in Independent Urdu ([22]). Please don't apply Western standards to Pakistani articles and take into consideration of local circumstances, like the control of media by ISPR in which they forbid such reporting. 195.180.32.35 (talk) 21:48, 28 May 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.
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. While this should not be taken as a referendum on other tennis players, OSE and if it shouldn't,AfD is available. Star Mississippi 01:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valentin Royer[edit]

Valentin Royer (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)

Non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Can't find any sources that involve more than just a passing mention or his one successful tournament in Tunisia, which isn't enough to meet notability requirements. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added French-language sources that mention him more than just in passing, as well as his finals/titles on the World Tennis Tour. He’s ranked in the top 200 and just passed the first round of qualifying at Roland Garros today. Mellamelina (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note that a lot of the references that have been added are again still just passing mentions of Royer and run-of-the-mill mentions of his tournament results. They don't go into any actual depth. Adamtt9 (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you created the page for Francesco Forti, and I'm confused by why Francesco Forti is seemingly more notable than Royer? Forti's page only has one reference, and it's just his ATP profile, so it seems a bit ridiculous to me that you're dying on this hill. The first five sources on Royer's article alone go into depth about him. And yes, a lot of the other sources are his tournament results because they're included in a section summarizing his professional career, which is hardly where you'd look for a huge thinkpiece about him. Mellamelina (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, re: Bogdan Bobrov, a player with 7 ITF titles and a career-high ranking of 361. You created this article and only cited his ATP profile, so I'm really not understanding how you're taking issue with Royer, who has the same amount of titles and a career-high ranking of 200, well above Bobrov's 361. Mellamelina (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable for anything tennis related. But Mellameline has a good point @Adamtt9:. You created Bogdan Bobrov and that player looks per the page to be even less worthy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to dogpile on @Adamtt9, but this AfD is absurd to me. Here are the non-notable tennis articles they've created this year alone. All of these are minimally sourced.
    So if we're really trying to cull tennis articles, why don't we start there, rather than the article of someone who just made a Challenger final and passed to the second round of qualifying at a Grand Slam? Mellamelina (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Minimally sourced doesn't equate non-notable. Adamtt9 (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So can you tell me what makes each of those players more notable than Royer? Since I don’t have any sources to refer to. Mellamelina (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Might I remind you that this all arose from you claiming that you couldn’t find any sources on Royer, and yet you don’t seem to have any firm ground to stand on in your own articles. To me, it seems like you did one simple English-language search on Royer and jumped to conclusions when you couldn’t find anything within the first 10 seconds of searching. Mellamelina (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mate I did enough of a search to not find any sources that went into depth, only passing mentions. I went through some French sources, but as I don't speak French, it was slightly difficult to figure out if they were enough to determine notability. So I sent it to AFD. You went and improved the article, so if other people agree with you that these sources are good and WP:GNG is met, then the article will be kept and no harm is done. I'm not sure why you're being so aggressive. Adamtt9 (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m being “aggressive” because it’s laughable that you’re talking about the state of my sources given the state of the sources on your articles. Don’t you understand that you’re throwing stones from a glass house and it seems a bit hypocritical? Mellamelina (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve done some research on the players I mentioned above that you deem notable enough for their own article, and I’m failing see how most of those, apart from one or two, could be considered more notable than Royer. None of them have even made the qualifying draw of a slam. The fact that you would put a “non-notable” AfD on this article and yet deem those players notable enough for their own articles is again, laughable. When this is over, you should definitely do a deep dive on your own work and consider whether, by your standards, they warrant an article due to notability and sources cited. Mellamelina (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wondering, have you looked at our guidelines on notability? For tennis related notability a player can 100 ITF events and gain nothing. Those events are filled with children and college players and are the lowest rung of making money. The Challenger level (minor leagues), making a final doesn't cut it either. You have to win a Challenger level event to warrant tennis notability at Wikipedia. Now a person may garner notability in other ways by having magazine articles or newspaper columns specifically about them. Our articles must include these facts to show notability. If you are ranked high enough to make the main draw of the WTA or ATP main tours you also gain notability, so that it is extremely likely that you'd find a good source or two. Obviously there can be an obscure case or two, but the best thing is to look at our guidelines and if a player doesn't pass that minimal litmus test, they shouldn't have an article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So why exactly aren't these standards being applied evenly across articles? How does a player like Bogdan Bobrov with zero ATP main draw appearances and zero Challenger titles warrant his own article? Mellamelina (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, he has a Challenger doubles title. Mellamelina (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's the difference... a minor league Challenger title whether its singles or doubles. When the guidelines gained consensus way back when, doubles and singles events were treated exactly the same. Doubles notability has fallen drastically every decade for 50 years to the point that maybe it should be re-looked at... perhaps needing a QF on the main tour to get the quick article creation. But until that happens it's the consensus we go by. There will always be borderline players and you always have to show that general notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree on this point. There are many players who technically meet the WP:NTENNIS requirements of playing in an ATP tour level match in doubles by receiving a wildcard. Even in Masters 1000 tournaments like Jacopo Bilardo and Giorgio Ricca in the Rome Masters just weeks ago. But they are still red links and an article shouldn't be created, because other than that one appearance where they lost comfortably, sourcing is not going to demonstrate an ounce of notability. So both WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG should be looked at to determine whether a player meets guidelines or not. Adamtt9 (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that’s fair. Mellamelina (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, only GNG should be used to determine notability, as NSPORT requires GNG to be met. Winning particular titles is completely irrelevant if you haven't cited SIGCOV sources in the article. Further, to qualify towards GNG, the coverage must be of the subject's career as an adult. JoelleJay (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But tennis guidelines help determine whether an editor should start creating a draft article knowing the likelihood of GNG will be met by outside sources in English or otherwise. And then consensus will determine whether GNG has been met. What do you mean by an adult? There are countless thousands of articles of people under the age of 18 who meet GNG. What does age have to do with notability? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per YOUNGATH, sources, especially local ones and anything interview-based, on a subject's junior achievements do not qualify as IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But that doesn't mean you get no GNG as a youth. We have be more careful. You don't use a high school paper that says their quarterback is special. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looking at the first 10 sources, I am not seeing enough IRS SIGCOV to meet GNG. Ping me with the three most significant pieces not listed here and I might reconsider.
    Source 1,7 (Ouest-France 1, 5): interview as a child w/ trivial indy coverage, fails YOUNGATH and SIGCOV/INDY Red XN. 2,4,6 (O-F 2, 3, 4): interview with some independent sentences, but still coverage of his juniors career and not enough to be SIGCOV Red XN. 3 Dicodusport: Blog piece in first-person Red XN. 5 Le Telegramme: Interview with very little independent content Red XN. 8 (O-F 6): almost zero independent content Red XN. 9 Tennis Actu: routine match report Red XN. 10 Tennis Plaza: routine match report. JoelleJay (talk) 23:58, 22 May 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.
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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Frank[edit]

Alexander Frank (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)

I'm unsure if this footballer is notable. Most of the cited sources seem to be interviews (primary sources) and I'm not finding much else in Google search results, though it may be possible that significant coverage exists in additional foreign-language sources.

This article was PRODded and deleted in 2020, albeit with less substantial content. However, I believe the notability concerns raised then apply to the current version as well. Complex/Rational 18:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Tajikistan, Austria, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My foremost concern would be the reliability of the sources. What are these news outlets? Geschichte (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], among many more sources. The news outlets are Tajik media outlets and he has been covered by various Tajikistani news outlets. Cleary was significant figure in Tajik football who played for three Tajik teams and helped Istiklol win AFC President's Cup. Defintiyl also has offline sources, having played in pre internet era also. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per sources above. Svartner (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tajikistan doesn't have freedom of the press. This is a serious concern regarding the sources. Geschichte (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That probably does not apply much to football news and even then the recent tightening of media occurred after most of these sources were published. He has been covered by various Tajikistani news outlets. Cleary was significant figure in Tajik football who played for three Tajik teams and helped Istiklol win AFC President's Cup. Defintiyl also has offline sources, having played in pre internet era also. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 19:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First source has some decent coverage (if reliable), the second has a sentence and the other 3 are interviews which are not sigcov. Dougal18 (talk) 09:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Dougal18 and per the concerns with Tajik media raised above. One ok source isn't enough to meet GNG, and given the potential that it is not reliable I don't think we can claim SPORTSCRIT is met. JoelleJay (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think important context is needed here... The sources do have secondary coevrage and even then if you look at Russian-speaking media it tends to cover players in the form of interviews (as opposed to e.g. Vietnamese and Indonesian media which are the opposite - tends to write about players without any or little interviews). He has been covered by various Tajikistani news outlets. Cleary was significant figure in Tajik football who played for three Tajik teams and helped Istiklol win AFC President's Cup and has Wikipedia pages in six languages... Defintiyl also has offline sources, having played in pre internet era also. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Sources shown clearly meet WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Dougal18 --SGaurier (talk) 23:40, 28 May 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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Event Supplier and Services Association[edit]

Event Supplier and Services Association (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)

No significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 18:21, 21 May 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.
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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of MLS Cup broadcasters[edit]

List of MLS Cup broadcasters (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)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS; one is a Twitter post, one is a now a dead link and the other is an announcment; neither doing anything to establish notability and the rest is unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Over 120 different sources have just been added, bumping the current total to about 123 references. If that doesn't establish the notability, then I really don't know what else there is that could do it. Also, Major League Soccer, is one of the big five North American professional sports leagues alongside the NFL, NBA, Major League Baseball, and NHL. It's also the official #1 professional soccer organization in North America, and has been since it launched in 1996. Broadcasting information about the MLS Cup is further detailed in the individual articles for each MLS Cup event. So it isn't like there is little remote interest about this particular subject overall. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This will definitely pass in 2009 but c'mon, this is 2024. Sourcing guidelines has changed since. First of all, Twitter does not count as a WP:RS, neither do YouTube. Bornon, Have you ever voted delete in any of my nominations? SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Big 5? LOL No such thing. Of course, there's the big 4. Back to the subject; these all consists of announcment posts, WP:PRIMARY, two are Twitter posts, most others are about the game and less the broadcasting. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failing WP:LISTN. I reviewed the sources and I can chalk it up to this: TV announcements (WP:NOTTVGUIDE), WP:PRIMARY from mlssoccer.com, and of course WP:ROUTINE announcements about the schedule/broadcasting team. None of which provide justifiability for this article's existence. Conyo14 (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacedFarmer: First of, why do you insist on replying to virtually single counterargument that somebody makes when you make an AFD? That's if you ask me, bordering on WP:BLUDGEONING? Also, like I said, there's broadcasting info in the individual MLS Cup articles themselves, such as the very first one in 1996. They're sourced or as good as the sources could possibly or remotely be. Here's some further articles about the MLS Cup broadcasting coverage, after the fact. BornonJune8 (talk) 7:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, Major League Soccer actually is considered part of the "Big 5" among North American professional sports franchises. Los Angeles Football Club, according to this article, was in the year 2023, valued at over $900 million. That's more than the Pittsburgh Penguins, Seattle Kraken, and Calgary Flames of the NHL. BornonJune8 (talk) 7:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Further information that includes details about radio coverage, television ratings (including local markets), and international television coverage (such as the networks and commentators) have now been added to hopefully provide some better context. BornonJune8 (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • As of now, there are over 200, almost 300 references in the article. BornonJune8 (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Argue how you like but I don't understand why is it necessary for have this list? Why not merge it to the one about the league instead? As it being the 'big 5', ask an American how popular it is there, they laugh at you. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this clearly passes WP:GNG, and the nomination statement is clearly flawed. NOTTVGUIDE specifically allows historically important television information, and this is looks at the history of broadcasting. The other WP:NOTs outlined in the deletion rationale - I've been at AfD enough to know that they're a grab bag of WP:IDONTLIKEITs - this isn't a database, the sources aren't routine, and now we're wasting time on this here. SportingFlyer T·C 16:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also since a couple people have used WP:ROUTINE - that clearly doesn't apply as even though not every source qualifies for GNG, there's plenty of national coverage of the broadcasters and game ratings, including from Canada's National Post. WP:NOTDATABASE is also clearly wrong - this article is mostly prose. SportingFlyer T·C 23:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:LISTN is not met as this grouping isn't discussed in secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. This seems clearly true? There are many, many references and the broadcast every cup is compared to all of the previous cups, making a list a properly notable topic. SportingFlyer T·C 22:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that, but what WP:THREE would you say do this? Let'srun (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Keep per BornonJune8 and SportingFlyer. There's nearly 300 references and much well-sourced text describing the history of MLS Cup broadcasters; I don't think it could be merged anywhere. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    300 sources, I'd advise BornonJune8 of WP:REFBOMBING. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, according to this article on MLS' attendance, Major League Soccer in the year 2022 had a higher average attendance than the NBA and NHL in 2022–23. MLS that year had an average attendance of 21,033 whereas the NBA had an 18,077 average attendance and the NHL had an 17,101 average attendance in that same time frame. In 2023, MLS set a new season long attendance record. BornonJune8 (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty idiotic comparing leagues taking place to a stadium vs one in an arena. Like comparing apples to oranges. Still, doesn't make it any bigger considering the size of those stadiums.
I cannot give the figures now as NHL is in a playoff, so cost of tickets will be higher but the average ticket for an NHL game costs $94. according to [28]. A ticket to see DC United will cost $21 according to Ticketmaster. Again, this list is not about how big MLS is to Americans. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the average seating capacity of a Major League Soccer stadium is said to be between 18,000 and 30,000. PayPal Park, which is home of the San Jose Earthquakes, is currently the smallest MLS stadium at about 18,000 seats. Meanwhile, the average NBA arena has a capacity of 18,790. And the average capacity of an NHL arena is around 16,000–20,000. This is not like comparing an NBA or NHL arena to an NFL stadium, which has an average seating capacity of 60,000–80,000. The current smallest NBA arena in terms of capacity is the State Farm Arena in Atlanta, which has a 16,600 maximum capacity BornonJune8 (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to do with the broadcasting teams? Conyo14 (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calling another editor's point "idiotic" is not appropriate (WP:UNCIVIL). Brindille1 (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm open to a redirect to MLS Cup Playoffs as a WP:ATD. I do think as presently structured that this fails WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per SportingFlyer. This is extensively referenced and shows clear WP:SIGCOV, while appearing to meet WP:LISTN. ...to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans – What kind of opinionated and completed irrelevant nomination rationale is that? Hey man im josh (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: BornonJune8 made a good list of secondary sources covering MLS Cup broadcasts. I understand that there are low quality sources among the nearly 281 sources cited in the article, but MLS Cup viewership very clearly meets WP:GNG. The fact that there are other non-reliable sources covering this topic is irrelevant- there are significant independent secondary sources covering this topic and that establishes notability. It is also worth pointing out that the nominator has made a large number of comments that MLS as a league is niche- these comments simply can't be considered in the deletion discussion, as they're litigating the notability of the league as a whole, rather than discussion of the actual topic. Brindille1 (talk) 16:09, 26 May 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.
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 merge‎ to Kowloon Tsai. Star Mississippi 01:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

College Road, Hong Kong[edit]

College Road, Hong Kong (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)

Article was previously declined for prod. Rationale is a very simple case of failing WP:INHERITED. The specific application of this policy is also noted at WP:NROAD BrigadierG (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Roadways, which says:

    Road networks: International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable. Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject.

    Sources
    1. Selection of two sources:
      1. "書院道精英地段" [Elite area of College Road]. The Sun (in Chinese). 2012-05-19. Archived from the original on 2024-05-12. Retrieved 2024-05-12.

        The article notes: "九龍塘區的豪宅內街以寧靜見稱，書院道同樣具備此項特色，其中坐落街道頭段的勝豐園，乃沿街老牌豪宅屋苑之一，樓齡約三十八年，兩座物業合共提供約48個單位，"

        From Google Translate: "The inner streets of luxury houses in Kowloon Tong District are famous for their tranquility. College Road also has this feature. Situated at the beginning of the street, Sheng Feng Yuan is one of the old luxury housing estates along the street. It is about 38 years old and has two properties. A total of about 48 units are provided,"

        The article notes: "其中步行已可達多家名校的書院道（College Road），盡佔名校網優勢，而書院道豪宅的入場費則由千萬餘以至逾半億元俱備。書院道鄰近喇沙利道，兩條豪宅街道的命名均源自區內名校之一的喇沙書院。"

        From Google Translate: "Among them, College Road is within walking distance of many famous schools, taking advantage of the network of famous schools. The admission fee for luxury houses on College Road ranges from more than 10 million to more than 500 million yuan. College Road is adjacent to La Salle Road. The two luxury streets are named after La Salle College, one of the famous schools in the area."

        The article notes: "書院道除了四周環境清幽恬靜外，最吸引買家之處，是優質學府選擇眾多，對於有意讓子女入讀名校的家長，吸引力自然特別高。至於在該街道一帶的名校除喇沙書院外，尚有瑪利諾修院學校、拔萃小學及黃笏南中學等。"

        From Google Translate: "In addition to the quiet and peaceful surroundings, College Road is most attractive to buyers because of its wide selection of high-quality schools. It is particularly attractive to parents who intend to enroll their children in prestigious schools. As for the famous schools in this street area, in addition to La Salle College, there are also Maryknoll Convent School, Diocesan Primary School and Wong Wat South Secondary School."

      2. "書院道匯聚黃金屋" [Collection of Golden Houses on College Road]. Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2012-09-30. Archived from the original on 2024-05-03. Retrieved 2024-05-03.

        The article notes: "九龍塘不但具備傳統豪宅區的魅力，更吸引之處是坐擁九龍名校網，其中步行已可達多家名校的書院道（College Road），尤其凸顯名校網優勢，老牌豪宅及豪宅新貴散落於寧靜的街道上，為講求實用的用家與愛好新廈的豪客提供不同選擇。"

        From Google Translate: "Kowloon Tong not only has the charm of a traditional luxury area, but what is even more attractive is that it is located in the prestigious Kowloon School Network. College Road (College Road), which is within walking distance of many famous schools, particularly highlights the advantages of the prestigious school network. Old luxury homes and upstart luxury homes are scattered here. The quiet street provides different options for practical users and high-end buyers who like new buildings."

        The article notes: "其中坐落街道頭段的勝豐園，乃沿街老牌豪宅屋苑之一，樓齡約三十八年，..."

        From Google Translate: "Among them, Sheng Feng Yuan, located at the end of the street, is one of the old luxury housing estates along the street. It is about 38 years old. ..."

        The article notes: "書院道另一個老牌屋苑為博文閣，坐落街道的中段，由於位於內街之中，加上面向喇沙書院的大球場，環境清幽，視野亦較開揚。"

        From Google Translate: "Another well-established housing estate on College Road is Bowen Court, located in the middle of the street. Because it is located in an inner street and faces the stadium of La Salle College, it has a quiet environment and a relatively open view."

        The article notes: "除了老牌豪宅外，書院道近年有一個矚目的新一代豪宅落成，乃由興勝創建發展的EI8HT COLLEGE。"

        From Google Translate: "In addition to the old luxury houses, a new generation of luxury houses has been completed on College Road in recent years, which is EI8HT COLLEGE founded and developed by Xingsheng."

    2. Additional sources:
      1. "九龍塘樂苑 雅緻裝潢闊露台" [Kowloon Tong Lok Garden Elegantly decorated wide terrace]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2013-08-30. p. D5.

        The article notes: "位於九龍塘的書院道，屬於內街，靜處一隅，由於街道比較短，因此供應的豪宅僅約10個左右。中原豪宅Stately Home九龍豪宅副區域聯席董事何維進稱，書院道的豪宅樓齡十分參差，其中最新的書院道8號於2011年入夥，而最舊的一批，樓齡逾50年。"

        From Google Translate: "Located on College Road in Kowloon Tong, it is an inner street and is located in a quiet corner. Since the street is relatively short, there are only about 10 luxury homes available. Ho Wei-jin, deputy regional co-director of Stately Home Kowloon luxury homes, said that the age of the luxury homes on College Road is very different. The newest one, No. 8 College Road, was occupied in 2011, while the oldest ones are more than 50 years old."

        The article notes: "由於鄰近九龍城，位處名校網，故書院道除家長客、低調廠家外，均屬用家，放盤有限交投不多。 最新一宗成交於4月份錄得，為書院道8號中層，實用面積1,758平方呎，建築面積2,446平方呎，為屋苑最後一間餘貨，以5,190萬元成交。"

        From Google Translate: "As it is close to Kowloon City and is located in a prestigious school network, College Road is owned by users except for parents and low-key manufacturers. The listings are limited and there is not much transaction. The latest transaction was recorded in April. It is a middle-floor building at No. 8 College Road, with a salable area of ​​1,758 square feet and a built-up area of ​​2,446 square feet. It is the last remaining unit in the housing estate and was sold for HK$51.9 million."

      2. "香港8號" [Hong Kong No. 8]. Sing Pao Daily News (in Chinese). 2011-11-14. p. B3.

        The article notes: "書院道因鄰近的喇沙書院而得名，現時書院道8號為新盤Eight College，由興勝創建（896）發展，屬於香港六大建築集團之一，估計發展商命名時取8號的 諧音「發」，著重其「意頭」。 該樓盤毗鄰九龍塘火車站，交通便捷，並鄰近校網，包括香港城巿大學、香港浸會大學、喇沙書院、拔萃小學，以及耀中國際小學∕幼兒園。"

        From Google Translate: "College Road is named after the nearby La Salle College. Currently, No. 8 College Road is the new Eight College, developed by Xingsheng Construction (896), which is one of the six major construction groups in Hong Kong. It is estimated that the developer took No. 8 when naming it. It is homophonic to "fa", emphasizing its "meaning". The property is adjacent to the Kowloon Tong Railway Station, with convenient transportation, and is close to school networks, including City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Baptist University, La Salle College, Diocesan Primary School, and Yew Chung International Primary School/Kindergarten."

      3. "九龍塘明麗園中層 環境清幽" [Ming Lai Garden, Kowloon Tong, middle floor, quiet environment]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2019-11-01. p. D19.

        The article notes: "九龍塘書院道，是傳統豪宅物業集中地，該地段以路闊車流量少，環境清幽見稱，放盤向來罕有 ，其中明麗園中層單位，連車位叫價2,500萬元。"

        From Google Translate: "College Road, Kowloon Tong, is where traditional luxury properties are concentrated. The area is famous for its wide road, low traffic volume, and quiet environment. It has always been rare to find a listing. Among them, the mid-rise unit in Ming Lai Garden, including a parking space, is priced at NT$25 million."

      4. Ng, Chi-fai 伍志輝 (2015-06-20). "靚盤巡禮：九龍塘明麗園　 裝修新淨　環境清幽" [Tour of beautiful properties: Kowloon Tong Ming Lai Garden, newly renovated and clean, with a quiet environment]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). p. B4.

        The article notes: "九龍塘書院道附近名校多，行車路面寬闊，車流量不高，環境清幽，同時享有鄰近九龍城的方便購物地利，沿路新舊物業都有一定捧場客。 明麗園座落書院道近衙前圍道方向，屬區內老牌大宅之一，盤源向來不多，"

        From Google Translate: "There are many famous schools near College Road in Kowloon Tong. The road surface is wide, the traffic volume is not high, and the environment is quiet. It also enjoys the convenient shopping location near Kowloon City. New and old properties along the road have a certain number of fans. Ming Lai Garden is located on College Road near Nga Tsing Wai Road. It is one of the old-style mansions in the area. There are not many houses in the area."

      5. "書院道8號連平台 裝潢雅緻" [No. 8, College Road, with terrace, elegant decoration]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2015-04-17. p. D5.

        The article notes: "九龍塘書院道街道比較短，故此提供的豪宅物業不多，樓齡一般由37至54年不等。 ... 而書院道8號，屬目前該處樓齡最新的物業，僅4年樓"

        From Google Translate: "The street of College Road in Kowloon Tong is relatively short, so there are not many luxury properties available. The age of the buildings generally ranges from 37 to 54 years. ... No. 8 College Road is currently the newest property there, being only 4 years old."

      6. "書院道樂苑低層 特高樓底" [Low floor, extra high floor, Dao Lok Court, College]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2013-12-20. p. D7.

        The article notes: "九龍塘書院道可供二手轉售的屋苑，除勝豐園外，大部分均在10層以下；至於樓齡方面，除書院道8號於11年入夥外，餘下多已超過40年。"

        From Google Translate: "Most of the housing estates available for second-hand resale in College Road, Kowloon Tong, with the exception of Sing Fung Garden, are below 10 storeys. As for the age of the buildings, except for No. 8 College Road, which was occupied in 11 years, most of the remaining housing estates are over 40 years old."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow College Road, Hong Kong (traditional Chinese: 書院道; simplified Chinese: 书院道) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get an assessment of newly found sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I don't see what's significant in the sources provided. It's a road with buildings in it. Geschichte (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources allow College Road, Hong Kong, to meet Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Roadways, which says roads "are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject". The sources discuss the road's namesake, the luxury housing estates on the road, how the prestigious schools in the area affect the prices of houses on the road, how parents and manufacturers are the primary owners of the road's units or property, and the road's attributes (wide, short, quiet, and low traffic volume). A non-notable road would not receive this depth of discussion in reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My problem with the sources presented is that they're all articles on property, not articles on the road itself, which is a short residential street. A proper article on a road - looking at London as an example - will have details on history, naming, events which occurred there, which the sources don't specifically cover. I don't think any of the additional sources count, and I'd like to see an additional source specifically written on the road before I think this would meet WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 04:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Sun article is titled "Elite area of College Road" and extensively discusses the road's background and attributes. It is not an article focused on the properties on the road.

      The Oriental Daily article is titled "Collection of Golden Houses on College Road". The article's thesis is that "the road has old luxury homes and upstart luxury homes scattered throughout", and the article backs up this statement by describing the various properties that dot the road. Significant coverage of what is on the road is significant coverage of the road. The article provides further context by noting that the road is close to prestigious schools and that it is a quiet, inner street.

      The sources do discuss why College Road is named College Road (its name was inspired by the nearby La Salle College). There is no requirement in Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Roadways for the sources to discuss "events that occurred there". College Road's notability is not derived from events that occurred there. College Road's notability is derived from being dotted with luxury properties from its proximity to prestigious schools. Cunard (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: College Road has received significant coverage in reliable sources so meets Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Roadways. If the consensus is that the road is not notable, the article still should not be deleted. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, the article should be merged to Kowloon Tsai, the area the road is in.

    A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Kowloon Tsai: where this content would be relevant and verifiable, while not requiring independent notability. Owen× ☎ 15:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with a merge. SportingFlyer T·C 20:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested by OwenX. While I'm a fan of WP:50k, I also understand that not everyone ascribes. A merge is a more reasonable outcome and compromise than outright deletion. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's a rough consensus against keep, but not yet a consensus between merging and deletion. Further arguments in favor of keep that may shift this emerging consensus are of course also still welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 21 May 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.
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 Electronic stability control#Regulation. Keep arguments need to explain more clearly why they feel it meets GNG, not simply say that the article meets it. Most failed to do that. There is some consensus to remove this article. When there is not consensus within that on whether to delete or redirect, it is prudent to go with the less destructive option. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 126[edit]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 126 (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)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Could be redirected to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG. There is significant coverage of FMVSS 126 in a large number of sources in Google Scholar and Google Books, including at least three entire articles on this subject: [29] [30] [31]. James500 (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG.Expandinglight5 (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GNG still does not mean it must have a standalone article; per WP:NOPAGE, it's more appropriate to cover the topic in context elsewhere. There are also sources on the European Union's regulation of electronic stability control, on Australia's regulation of electronic stability control, on Canada's regulation of electronic stability control, on Argentina's regulation of electronic stability control, etc.... I'm sure an additional source for each beyond those in the main article can be found to satisfy GNG but that doesn't mean a duplicative page is necessary for this. Reywas92Talk 17:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There does not appear to be any duplication. The laws of one country are not the same thing as the laws of another. In any event, there comes a point where the sheer volume of coverage of a topic is so large that it cannot be stuffed into a single article; and in such cases the parent article needs to be split. Electronic stability control is such a topic. There are hundreds of articles in Google Scholar that are entirely about electronic stability control, to the point where the words "electronic stability control" actually appear verbatim in their titles. The article Electronic stability control is already 62kB long and does not need to be made longer. James500 (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Um no, page length is measured by prose text and it's only 25kb/4,000 words long, well under WP:LENGTH's guideline. Expansion of that article including its regulation section is absolutely more than welcome. But if you think it should be split, a single country's regulation of it is the wrong way to do so (a different section or a general Regulation of electronic stability control would be better if warranted). This US regulation page is so short, it is duplicated in its entirety by the main article's "The United States followed, with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration implementing FMVSS 126, which requires ESC for all passenger vehicles under 10,000 pounds (4536 kg). The regulation phased in starting with 55% of 2009 models (effective 1 September 2008), 75% of 2010 models, 95% of 2011 models, and all 2012 and later models." This is unnecessary to be a separate page. Reywas92Talk 14:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This regulation does not duplicate the regulations of other countries. The sources about this regulation do not duplicate the sources about the regulations of other countries. WP:ARTN says "if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability". Accordingly, the fact that some of the content of this article is similar to the content of the parent article does not decrease the notability of the topic of this article. In any event, the article has now been expanded some new content that is not in the parent article, and more can be added. Likewise, the fact that this article is presently short is also irrelevant, because it can be expanded so as to make it much longer. In theory, this page could be moved to Regulation of electronic stability control, without prejudice to a future split, in order to speed up the creation of such an article, but this page should not be merged into another page (which would not have the page history of this page). James500 (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Electronic stability control#Regulation, where this is already discussed. The sources above would also be better in the main article than a separate page. Individual regulations rarely need their own articles and I don't see an exception here. Reywas92Talk 00:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or WP:ATD Merge to Electronic stability control#Regulation or Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards#Crash avoidance both of which cover the subject. There are literally hundreds of these individual regulations, evidenced with the above Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Title 49 has around 35 regulations under "Crash avoidance", "Crashworthiness" with approximately 27 regulations, "Post-crash survivability" with five regulations, "Miscellaneous" with five regulations, "Other regulations relating to transportation" with approximately 54 "parts". Per The slippery slope is creating hundreds of dictionary type entries with mainly primary sourcing, at the expense of the parent articles. Per Reywas92 Individual regulations rarely need their own articles. The actual concept is supposed to be that there is "significant coverage" in reliable and independent sources that will allow the eventual writing of a "whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic", referred to as a permastub. Just because Wikipedia allegedly has unlimited space does not mean every aspect of a subject should be broken down to the smallest part. At a point, if an individual subject grows large enough then a split should be discussed. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The number of individual regulations is not excessively large. Hundreds of regulations is nothing compared to the 6 million articles we already have, or the hundreds of millions of topics that probably satisfy GNG. In any event, no one is arguing that all the regulations should have an article. We are only arguing that the regulations that satisfy GNG should have articles. And right now we are only arguing that this one regulation satisfies GNG, which means that right now we are only arguing for exactly one article. The slippery slope fallacy is not a reason for deletion or merger. In this case, the initial step is not demonstrably likely to result in the claimed effects. The article does not violate WP:NOTDICTIONARY in its present form. It is not a definition or a dictionary entry. In any event, the article can be expanded far beyond a definition. The sourcing is not primary. Reywas92 is not a policy or guideline. There is significant coverage in reliable and independent sources that will allow the eventual writing of a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. The article is not half a paragraph or a definition, and is, in any event, capable of being expanded far beyond that. The article is not a permastub, and is, in any event, capable of being expanded far beyond that. No one has argued that every aspect of a subject should be broken down to the smallest part. We have argued that topics that satisfy GNG are presumed to merit an article. Insisting on waiting until the parent article actually reaches 8,000 words is bound to result in the article becoming seriously unbalanced (WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:PROPORTION). That is one of the reasons that we don't try to stuff and stuff and stuff lots of notable topics into a single article. James500 (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "The number of individual regulations is not excessively large" Maybe not U.S. motor vehicles regulations, but internationally among all subjects there are – hundreds of thousand of regulations do not need articles. "capable of being expanded". So is the main article. There's simply no need to have this separate page at this point, regardless of your hypothetical of who would write articles on individual regulations. The sources you added are highly technical papers that I do not believe are particularly conducive for an article here. The article could easily have a "Testing procedures" section as well. "article becoming seriously unbalanced" There is no indication that this will happen and we can still split before that point. Reywas92Talk 15:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The total number of regulations on all subjects worldwide is irrelevant: not all regulations are equal. The USA is a large country with a correspondingly large number of motor vehicles and motor vehicle accidents. Motor vehicle safety is one of more important subjects on which regulations are made (because of the risk to life and property). US motor vehicle safety regulations are likely to receive more coverage than regulations from smaller countries on less important subjects. For example, a commencement order from Tuvalu (population 11,900) is not going receive anything remotely like the kind of coverage that US motor vehicle safety regulations are going to receive. The correct approach is to create standalone articles on those regulations that actually satisfy GNG. There is no evidence that an excessive number of regulations satisfy GNG. (There is no evidence that the number of regulations that do actually satisfy GNG is actually "hundreds of thousands" or even remotely close to that.) In fact, the number of regulations that satisfy GNG is, by definition, the number that is not excessive for our purposes. The point is that no one is arguing for a standalone article on every regulation in the world, we are only arguing for articles on the regulations that satisfy GNG. I think the three articles that I linked to above, and the rest of the 270 sources in Google Scholar, are conducive to an article on this regulation. James500 (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So write it. The vast majority of those sources are brief mentions of the regulation or sine with dwell test, which are perfectly conducive for inclusion in the main article for appropriate context of development and testing of electronic stability control. Reywas92Talk 14:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per JoelleJay below, based on quality of sourcing. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Electronic_stability_control#Regulation: where it is already covered in as much detail as is encyclopedically warranted. Owen× ☎ 15:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no policy, guideline or consensus that says that more detail is not encyclopedically warranted. Simply claiming that something is "unencyclopedic" is one of the arguments to avoid listed in the essay WP:ATA. James500 (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTEVERYTHING, a section of the policy page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not explicitly states the following: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. I invite you to reconsider the accuracy of your comment here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No-one has argued that more detail should be included "solely because it is true or useful". More detail can be included without the article ceasing to be "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". James500 (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was responding to There is no policy, guideline or consensus that says that more detail is not encyclopedically warranted which is not a correct statement, as written it could be justification for articles of infinite length. And all you've managed to do thus far is add one sentence about a "sine with dwell test" (whatever on earth that even means). What I've yet to see (and what might actually change people's opinions) are sources that give significant coverage to the regulation. What more is there to be said about this regulation? If it can't be expanded beyond a stub it clearly should be redirected to Electronic stability control#regulation per WP:NOPAGE (and that's even generously assuming the regulation is notable, which has yet to be demonstrated either). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are twisting my words. The statement "There is no policy, guideline or consensus that says that more detail is not encyclopedically warranted" does not mean what you claim it means. As far as NOTEVERYTHING is concerned, it is a correct statement because that policy does not forbid the inclusion of "more detail" that is "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". I did not say "There is no policy, guideline or consensus that says that more detail is not encyclopedically warranted even if it is not a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". If I had meant to say "even if it is not a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" I would have said so in express words. There is no policy, guideline or consensus that forbids "more detail" only because it is more detail. James500 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already supplied you with sources that satisfy GNG including [32] [33] [34] and others. What I've yet to see (and what might actually change people's opinions) is any explanation of why the coverage in these sources is allegedly not significant, or why the additional information they contain about this regulation should allegedly not be added to the article. James500 (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And if you had actually read those sources, you would know what the Sine with Dwell test is. James500 (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets GNG, no problem.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Tens of thousands of engineering papers reference the technical standards that their study subjects must meet; this is routine and does not mean each standard warrants a standalone article. Further, a ResearchGate preprint (not RS) and a technical paper by a company with clear financial involvement with FMVSS regulations do not count towards GNG. We cannot be basing our coverage of federal regulations on what the commercial entities being regulated say about them, that is not going to be NPOV. The most relevant content is already present on the suggested page where it is better contextualized. JoelleJay (talk) 21:40, 29 May 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.
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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Munir (cricketer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Asim Munir (cricketer) (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)

Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous nomination closed as no consensus 56 days ago. Possibly a little soon for a renomination, but there is no requirement that a person wait any amount of time after a NC close. Frank Anchor 16:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without a proper rationale, it's hard to consider your vote when the time comes to close this discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think by referring to the prior AFD, AA is implying that their rationale there still applies: 64 matches at the highest domestic level, likely to be coverage in Pakistan too. Unlike western media archives (like Gale, BNA, Trove), Pakistan print media remains largely non-digitalized. Common sense should dictate that in cases where a large number of matches are played by a cricketer, they are likely to be notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (copying my vote from the previous AFD, which still applies in full). The subject played 64 matches at the highest domestic level. Seems like a case where WP:COMMONSENSE needs to prevail, even if the references aren't quite to the level of GNG. Frank Anchor 16:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My comments remain the same as the previous AfD. It is highly likely that there is offline sourcing or non-English language sourcing that is difficult to access that would pass the subject for WP:GNG given the career he had. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep read the last AFD, fully concur with the keep voters there. Most likely passes WP:GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom fails WP:SIGCOV. No proof offered - per WP:NCRIC cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof.. Closing admin should ignore keep votes that couldn't find any significant coverage. 103.125.122.179 (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC) — 103.125.122.179 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • And likewise, unless a convincing explanation can be offered, this comment by an IP that has never edited before and is likely a WP:SOCK should be discounted; not to mention that NCRIC is a guideline and common sense is allowed to be used. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      IP links to Bangladesh, but definitely a WP:SOCK of someone. Checkuser? AA (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment about the relisting while taking no sides: On the one hand, the sock suggestion is serious. On the other hand, all information as of this relisting comes only from a single source: CricketArchive. Even if the self-proclaimed "most comprehensive, searchable and trusted cricket database in the world" turns out to be valid and reliable, a notable individual should pop up in other sources as well. If other valid sources worth adding exist, great. If not, that may pose a problem. It would be nice for this not to end in another "no consensus" again so soon after the last one. I'm saying this here because it seems a bit long for a formal relisting comment. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the last AFD (should not have been renominated so soon and I question how the nom came across it) and my rationale there. We need to use common sense. Unless someone can prove that some source from the era in Pakistan was searched in, then one cannot claim that this fails GNG – from my comment at the last AFD: it does seem the best option to be on the side of [common sense] for someone who seems ... to have played 64 top-tier matches in the fifth-most populous country in the world in its most popular sport. It is highly unlikely a person of such accomplishments would not have gained any coverage. I also question how four valid "keeps" plus one "delete from a sock" – which should be given no weight – equals "relist"... BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, and as of today the IP has not been blocked. Consensus changes and one of the bolded keep votes didn't reference any policy. [User:Let'srun|Let'srun]] (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because the IP has not been blocked does not mean the almost certain sock should be given full weight. Common sense is absolutely a policy. Also, if you think my concerns about the nom are unfounded, would you tell me exactly how you came across this article, then? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AOBF. I also wasn't referring to that vote. Let'srun (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What were you referring to, then? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first vote. Let'srun (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... I guess I missed the "one of" part from "one of the bolded keep votes didn't reference any policy" – though I think the !vote implied that the rationale of keeping per common sense at the last AFD still applied, as I said above. Still think AA's !vote should be given weight. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: CricketArchive is a directory, not a secondary source. WP:MUSTBESOURCES is a flimsy argument at the best of times, but for a BLP, it's a non-argument. Without independent secondary sources providing SIGCOV for this BLP, we don't really have any options. Owen× ☎ 15:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are allowed to use common sense. It is invalid to argue the article fails notability when no one has searched in Pakistani sources whatsoever! BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, that's exactly the MUSTBESOURCES I was talking about. Owen× ☎ 16:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It simply makes no sense to delete articles when no one has searched for coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well then, perhaps you should rewrite the WP:N and WP:BLP policies to a version that makes more sense to you, BeanieFan11. As they are written now, unless and until we find those sources, we can't have an article about anything, let alone a living person. Owen× ☎ 16:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's why IAR / common sense exists. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course. Who needs all those pesky policies and gnarly guidelines when we have our WP:IAR trump card in our back pocket, right? Owen× ☎ 16:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Notability is a guideline; Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. This is one of the rare exceptions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      IAR is not a trump card, but an understanding that Wikipedia’s policies are not perfect and there are cases in which the rules need not rigidly apply. OwenX, as an admin and consistent contributor to AFD/DRV discussions, should know this, even if he doesn’t agree with this particular application of IAR. Frank Anchor 00:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Full two relists seems appropriate given the relatively recent, prior no consensus outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. CricketArchive is a stats directory; every single one of the sources cited for this BLP is a prose-less table of primary data and therefore is unacceptable per N, OR, and BLP (Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. ... Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.) . Per NSPORT, the burden is on those wanting to keep to establish there is high likelihood of the subject meeting GNG; to do that, NSPORT requires a source of IRS SIGCOV be cited in the article. No one has demonstrated such a source exists in the 4+ weeks + 60 days this subject has been in focus. IAR is meant to be employed in exceptional circumstances, not for literally every athlete meeting some participation criterion who "might" have offline sources, which is how it is regularly being used by certain keep !voters. If playing some number of first-class domestic matches -- which are not the top tier of cricket -- was a reasonable threshold for presuming GNG we would have guidelines stating as much rather than a guideline explicitly stating that sufficient coverage is not expected for that level of play: Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket,[a] may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof.
At some point the repeated invocation of deprecated notability guidelines disguised as IAR becomes disruptive. !Votes that are devoid of any P&G basis -- and especially ones that actively defy P&Gs -- should not just be automatically given weight, much less elevated to the same weight as P&G-based !votes, any time the !voter mentions the magic phrase "IAR". That completely defeats the purpose of consensus policy stating Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight. JoelleJay (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s funny that JoelleJay suggests that Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight, but seems to forget that WP:IAR in fact IS A POLICY, and the fundamental policy behind one of Wikipedia’s five pillars. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions (emphasis mine). Having an article on a person who played 64 matches at the highest domestic level can easily be considered one of these exceptions. Frank Anchor 22:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So your claim is that IAR, which is supposed to be just as exceptional at AfD as it is everywhere else, must be applied to everyone playing some arbitrary number of matches at the highest domestic level (which would be 23, not 64) in Pakistan, despite 1) participation-based criteria explicitly being deprecated by global consensus; 2) the requirement for a SIGCOV source cited in all sportsperson bios, regardless of subject location or time period, receiving overwhelming global support; 3) the guidelines written by the cricket project itself explicitly stating playing at this level requires proof of coverage to even warrant the same presumption of GNG coverage existing afforded to Test cricketers; 4) NO ONE finding a single hint of a source in either the first AfD or this one; 5) NO ONE demonstrating why we can presume 23 first-class matches in Pakistan corresponds to SIGCOV; and 6) zero evidence being presented to explain why this page in particular, consisting exclusively of some unremarkable blandly-prosified stats that AA chose to emphasize and synthesize based on his interpretation of multiple sources of primary data, is so essential to Wikipedia that our POLICY of Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. and our POLICY that BLPs only rely on primary sources when they have already been discussed by secondary sources (Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.) and our POLICY that The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies can be overridden because some editors have decided that per IAR PoLiCY we can completely ignore Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies.
Please tell me where Per "ignore all rules", a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests, but this should be no less exceptional in deletion than in any other area. says consensus in a particular case can suspend multiple guidelines, let alone multiple policies, and be so utterly non-specific to the attributes of the actual subject that this precise reasoning for a "one-time suspension" could be (and will be) deployed for literally dozens of other subjects. JoelleJay (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I never stated or implied Per "ignore all rules", a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests, but this should be no less exceptional in deletion than in any other area. Nor has any other keep !voter implied this. Also, IAR is not a guideline or editors' consensus but rather a policy. So your WP:WALLOFTEXT leading to the argument that content policies can't be superseded by local consensus or guidelines, while correct, is irrelevant in this application. Frank Anchor 19:37, 28 May 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.
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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of motorcycle suspension manufacturers[edit]

List of motorcycle suspension manufacturers (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)

Completely unreferenced list of parts manufacturers, with no indication that the set of these companies is somehow notable. Article was tagged by another user without proper followup but after having a look I'm taking it upon myself to complete the nomination. @Cowinatree: For future AfD nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall talk 17:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sorry I didn’t follow through. I’m pretty new to this. Cowinatree (talk) 08:24, 22 May 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.
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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vogue Institute of Art and Design[edit]

Vogue Institute of Art and Design (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)

It appears to be a non-notable design school with no significant coverage in reliable sources. The currently cited sources are either passing mentions, school profiles, press releases, or paid brand posts, including a few unreliable ones. A Google News search for "Vogue Institute of Art and Design" and "Vogue Institute of Fashion Technology" yields nothing useful either. Therefore, it fails to meet WP:CORPDEPTH imo. GSS 💬 15:54, 21 May 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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iligan Computer Institute[edit]

Iligan Computer Institute (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)

Private school that may not be notable due to lack of reliable sources online. Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:31, 21 May 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.
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 merge‎ to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro). Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phú Diễn station (Hanoi Metro)[edit]

Phú Diễn station (Hanoi Metro) (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)

Zero significant coverage. The best I could find is an article about an inebriated train driver at a different station. [35] Toadspike [Talk] 15:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If closed as delete, please redirect to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro). Same for all the others. Toadspike [Talk] 15:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete SNG says that these are not presumed wp:notable and therefore must meet GNG. Clearly does not even 1/4 meet GNG. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Vietnam. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the position data, etc. to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) and redirect there if sources cannot be found (they're most likely to be in Vietnamese, so do check in that language). There is no reason to delete the information present in the article which will be useful if it is expanded in future. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge there isn't enough coverage (or content) for a separate article from Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) yet, but there might be in the future. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:17, 21 May 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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Ifrah[edit]

Jeff Ifrah (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 resume is an advert. Besides that, I cannot find any significant coverage about the subject, rather than by the subject. Adjunct professor doesn't count for NPROF, and nor does citations in general media rather than scholarly works for the bibliometric criteria. I cannot identify any other additional criteria that Ifrah may pass. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Law, and New York. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is promotional biography. Sources in articles are name-checks, brief quotes from article subject, interviews, and firm profiles. Google Scholar appears to have nothing of substance and his articles are not widely cited. Agree he doesn't meet NPROF or GNG, and hard to see another guideline that would apply. Oblivy (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Very PROMO, the only article about this person is 16. Might have a brief mention in "gambling laws in the USA" or something along those lines, just not enough coverage about the person. Most articles are about the legalities of sports betting, not about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree #16 is probably SIGCOV. It's a regional newspaper which might reduce its weight but that's just quibbling. Oblivy (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the analyzed sources do not help to establish fulfilment of WP:ANYBIO or general notability. --BoraVoro (talk) 06:23, 22 May 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.
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 merge‎ to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro). Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chùa Hà station[edit]

Chùa Hà station (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 article has very limited coverage in sources. The article already cited mentions it once in a quote. This article [36] mentions that it's named in a sign at a different metro station. I don't think that's significant coverage. Two articles [37][38] report on trash piles at this station, among others. Again, I don't see sigcov. Three suspiciously similar articles [39][40][41] briefly report on possible plans to build parking spaces at this station, which is ROUTINE in addition to not being significant. Toadspike [Talk] 15:05, 21 May 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.
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 merge‎ to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro). Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minh Khai station[edit]

Minh Khai station (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)

No SIGCOV. Cited source doesn't mention this station. Only other sources I found are three nearly identical articles about a safety drill held near (but not at) this station: [42][43][44] Toadspike [Talk] 14:47, 21 May 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.
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 merge‎ to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro). Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lê Đức Thọ station[edit]

Lê Đức Thọ station (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)

Lacks SIGCOV to meet the GNG. The one source cited doesn't mention this station at all. A BEFORE search found this rather funny video about trash piled on one of the station's staircases [45], an article that mentions this station simply as the destination of the reporter's train but doesn't provide any detail [46], and this article which names the station in two captions but doesn't say anything about it at all [47]. Toadspike [Talk] 14:42, 21 May 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.
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 merge‎ to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro). Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cầu Giấy station[edit]

Cầu Giấy station (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 subject lacks significant coverage to meet the general notability guideline. After scouring the Internet, I found [48][49] two extremely similar sources with photos of this station. I am not sure if they count toward significant coverage, but that is all I could find, and it is not enough to meet the GNG. The one source in the article [50] doesn't qualify as significant coverage either – the station is mentioned once in a quote and twice in image captions, and the images weren't even necessarily taken at this station! Toadspike [Talk] 14:36, 21 May 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.
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 merge‎ to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro). Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Văn Miếu station[edit]

Văn Miếu station (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)

Another Hanoi metro station with no significant coverage. This one isn't even mentioned in the one source cited! Web searches revealed two articles (in Vietnamese) that mention this station once each [51][52]. Toadspike [Talk] 14:22, 21 May 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.
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 merge‎ to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro). Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Mã station[edit]

Kim Mã station (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)

I could find no significant coverage of this station. The one article cited provides no information about the station beyond naming it in two image captions. Toadspike [Talk] 14:13, 21 May 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.
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 merge‎ to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro). Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nhổn station[edit]

Nhổn station (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)

I found no significant coverage about this station. Sources naming it simply mention it as one terminus of the Nhon – Hanoi Station line and give no additional detail about this station. Even the Vietnamese Wikipedia article's sources have no significant coverage. This article should be redirected to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro). Toadspike [Talk] 14:10, 21 May 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.
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. ✗plicit 14:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amélie Chekroun[edit]

Amélie Chekroun (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)

Academic biography that does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO or WP:NACADEMIC. Their articles and books are not widely cited and there is no available significant coverage in independent secondary sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, History, Islam, Africa, Ethiopia, and France. Skynxnex (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly fails NACADEMIC (it seems she is not a professor, let alone one of the special types that is presumed notable), and a web search found no significant coverage, independent or otherwise. Toadspike [Talk] 14:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Her citation record is not yet strong enough for WP:PROF, I don't see any books that could pass WP:AUTHOR, and her position (chargée de recherche au CNRS) is still pretty junior. Directrice de recherche (the next level up) would be more likely to be notable, although still not something that leads to automatic notability. (A note, though, re the previous comment "not a professor": the French system separates academic researchers from academic teachers more than the US or UK ones do, and she is on the research track. "Professor", in the French system, is the top teaching-track position. But our notability criteria favor research over teaching. So it is entirely possible that she may become notable in a few years despite not being so now.) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 21 May 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.
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. ✗plicit 23:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WFL All-Time Team[edit]

AfDs for this article:
WFL All-Time Team (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 is not an official or recognized team (although that would likely be impossible given the league folded in 1975) that was created by "fans of the WFL". After looking through the sources, it's likely that the "fans" were the 2 authors (and self-appointed "official researchers") of the World Football League Encyclopedia, which appears to have a limited circulation at best and is not independent. The rest of the references are either individual team media guides that likely have zero mention of the team because they were published before the league folded or self-published sites. The previous AfD in 2009 was editors voting "weak keep" and acknowledging the referencing was bad, but because there were references provided (which is clearly not a valid rationale to keep under today's notability standards). Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SIGCOV easily. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no evidence of notability, especially if it's not an officially recognized team. If anything, the list of players itself (sans the stats) could merged into the main WFL article. JTtheOG (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC) JTtheOG (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's not clear what this list is, where it came from, or why anybody should care. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:24, 21 May 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.
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 List of programmes broadcast by Colors TV#Drama. ✗plicit 14:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagyavidhaata[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bhagyavidhaata (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)

I agree with the original nom: "The article doesn't cite any WP:RS and doesn't meet WP:GNG, hence should be deleted". Also, therefore, fails WP:NTV. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:58, 21 May 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.
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. ✗plicit 14:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Energising India[edit]

Energising India (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)

No refs on the page for many years. Not clear how WP:NFILM has been met JMWt (talk) 09:57, 21 May 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.
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 Clan Lindsay. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endure Pursuivant[edit]

Endure Pursuivant (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)

No refs on the page for many years. Other than mentions in databases of heraldry, I'm not seeing the level of RS needed to show that the standards of notability have been met. JMWt (talk) 09:51, 21 May 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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endocentric environment[edit]

Endocentric environment (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)

No refs on the page for many years. No finding sources to show that this term meets the notability standards for inclusion JMWt (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was not able to find any sources that are not simply mirrors of this article. Even if there is demand for information on the term, we obviously need sources to back up the claim of what this term means. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I got zero hits in the Ebsco database, zero in G-Books. If this were a thing there would be evidence. (I actually like the term; too bad it didn't get traction.) Lamona (talk) 15:43, 26 May 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.
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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Empires of Sand[edit]

Empires of Sand (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)

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much found to consider against the inclusion criteria JMWt (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the references are incorrectly formatted but they are there, and significant magazine coverage pre-internet is generally strongly indicative of notability. BrigadierG (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reviews added by Eastmain. Toughpigs (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Booklist, Publisher's Weekly, and Library Journal reviews? Looks like sufficient SIGCOV for a book to me. Jclemens (talk) 20:59, 21 May 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.
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. ✗plicit 06:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dolvoaua, Nebraska[edit]

Dolvoaua, Nebraska (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)

I can't verify this. The name might be spelled incorrectly. The only reference is a Wikimapia page that has been deleted. Aerial photos show a big cylinder or circular pool at these coordinates but no obvious settlement. Google and Bing searches don't reveal anything helpful. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Nebraska. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Likely hoax. Nothing in satellite images, nothing in any USGS topo map, and not even anything in GNIS: [53]. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I thought this might be an OCR failure with the odd spelling, but I'm leaning hoax also. No GNIS entry is a bad sign. Nothing in a books search that might scrape up old references to a community that no longer physically exists. Filtering out Wikipedia, mirrors, and shady sites that clearly scrape data from here, literally all I can find is the 2020 report of Humanities Nebraska, which includes Dolvoaua in a graphical list of Nebraska community names. Since this article has existed since 2015, there's a real chance that HN used Wikipedia to create that list. Lubal (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a hoax. Nothing on newspapers.com, nothing on Google that doesn't seem to be scraped from this wikipedia entry. The only available USGS small-scale topographic map shows what I think is the symbol for a windmill here. This is either a hoax or something that is so obscure that somehow no locatable mention of it can be found. Hog Farm Talk 01:47, 23 May 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.
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. ✗plicit 06:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Rosenblum[edit]

Nicola Rosenblum (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Brunei, and Australia. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't find anything beyond press releases or her appearances at various events, not meeting notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I ran searches against Aussie newspapers and got nothing. This is clearly an accomplished government employee who has held significant posts (of which Ambassador is not the only one). Google returns a number of documents but they are all interviews or articles about her by the agencies that employed her, so not independent. I'll check back in case someone with better access to Oz sources finds something. Lamona (talk) 15:59, 26 May 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.
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. ✗plicit 06:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Adler (diplomat)[edit]

Ruth Adler (diplomat) (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Ireland, and Australia. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  08:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 03:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree. Fails WP:GNG. Great that these pages are created but first dig further to see if they are notable enough. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A search in Ebsco shows that there are sources in the Irish Times and the Borneo Bulletin but I can't see the actual articles. They do appear to be the usual "X shows up at event" or "X is the new/outgoing Y" so those wouldn't provide GNG proof. As she has a doctorate I hoped to find articles in scholar but if they are there I missed them. Part of the problem is the usual "common name" search. At this moment I don't see a way to save this one. Lamona (talk) 16:18, 26 May 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.
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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 00:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CombinedX[edit]

CombinedX (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)

fails WP:NCORP, the sources are only routine announcements with no deep or direct coverage of the company Assirian cat (talk) 07:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted the delete tag and since I am Swedish, I thought to give my opinion. There is a Swedish Wikipedia page for it, so I will look at that and check sources. Atlassian (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am still reading Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) and checking how it's done on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_May_22 as well as on other dates. Atlassian (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, this is a clear keep.
There already is a great explanation on the talk page. I will soon add some comments of my own. Atlassian (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Building on the explanation that's already present on the talk page:
  1. This is a publicly traded company. You and I and anyone else can literally become shareholders tomorrow or the day after. This alone is notable.
  2. Furthermore, as a publicly traded company, it is legally obliged (by Swedish law) to publish detailed and truthful reports. Those reports are frequent and very detailed, the latest I could find was 128 pages long. This is not your run-of-the-mill routine coverage. This is much more detailed than a newspaper article.
    Here is some information from Bolagsverket and Swedish Economic Crime Authority about penalties and prison sentences associated with information delays and false information in reporting – [54], [55], [56], [57], [58].
  3. I could also find multiple reliable, independent, secondary and significant-coverage sources as specified Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). Here are three examples from Swedish business magazine Affärsvärlden: [59], [60], podcast analysis. And there are many others.
  4. Also, the comment left on the talk page is accurate in saying that there are many many less notable companies on Wikipedia.
Atlassian (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
re legally obliged (by Swedish law) to publish detailed and truthful reports specifically, regulatory filings, while meeting the "detailed" and "reliable" parts, do not meet the "secondary" or "independent" parts of the criteria. Haven't looked at the press coverage though, so I won't leave an actual opinion unless I have the time to do so later. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am away today, so I'll attempt to make a writeup in one go, in bullet-point form.
  1. I am new to Articles_for_deletion part of Wikipedia, but the rules are clear and I think that I have a good grasp of them now.
  2. Indeed, regulatory filings is a good description. They probably should count for something (given the "detailed" and "reliable" parts). Oftentimes, regulatory filing will be more detailed and reliable than a news article.
  3. I made a quick search for press coverage and will share my results here.
  4. In my search, I excluded articles about its quarterly or annual reports, like this one from Dagens Industri. This kind of articles are plenty, given that the subject is a publicly listed company.
  5. I also excluded coverage by financial institutions, like this one by Swedbank. I excluded because it probably can be considered "routine coverage" even though most companies do not have this kind of coverage. I also excluded other similar links like these –[61], [62], [63],[64], [65] and others.
  6. I also excluded coverage pages dedicated to publicly traded companies like those on Financial Times, Bloomberg and elsewhere. Some examples include: [66],[67], [68], [69], [70] etc.
  7. I also excluded articles by "micropublishers", like "IT Karriär" (examples here: [71], [72], etc.)
  8. When searching for media coverage, I tried to find more publishers rather than more articles from the same publisher. I don't know, there seems to be plenty. Some examples below.
  1. Resumé (magazine): [73]
  2. Placera [sv]: [74]
  3. Börskollen [sv]: [75]
  4. Realtid.se [sv]: [76]
  5. Elektroniktidningen [sv]: [77]
  6. Dagensinfrastruktur [sv]:[78]
  7. Privata Affärer [sv]: [79]
  8. Nya Wermlands-Tidningen: [80]
Atlassian (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nominator has been blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sources may be behind paywalls but publicly traded companies are typically notable. ~Kvng (talk) 21:11, 28 May 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.
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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 23:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uptown Scottsbluff[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Uptown Scottsbluff (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)

The prior AfD closed in January, but I don't believe these changes, while not a G4, are sufficient to render a different outcome and the mall still fails WP:CORP. While TPH may be limited from filing a DRV, they raised their opinion that the discussion was invalid. Because it has been recreated, a DRV is no longer viable so bringing it here for further discussion as prior closer. Star Mississippi 02:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think I can identify four articles from three sources in this piece that pass the test for independent, significant, non-trivial, secondary coverage under NCORP: Omaha World-Herald, Star-Herald, and two KNEB sources: [81], [82]. (The NCORP trivial mention test does not exclude coverage of rebranding or changes in ownership.) I recognize these were in the article when it was first nominated, so I would have leaned "keep" then as well. (P.S. If Uptown Scottsbluff can't clear AfD with these sources, then the rest of the malls in Nebraska should be nominated too.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flagging comment from TPH located here. They are not able to participate here but I believe are able to opine and so flagging to be sure it's not missed by closer. Star Mississippi 00:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough sources to justify keeping the article. There are some individual sources here I would not have used myself, but that does not affect the weight of the other sources. Esw01407 (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:40, 21 May 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.
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. Dismissing the opinions of editors appearing out of nowhere, I see a rejection of current sources being used and a consensus to delete. User:Demeter39G pay attention to the words of User:S0091 and if you nominate other articles for AFD discussions, try to avoid the problems that emerged in this one. Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lika O[edit]

Lika O (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)

Requested by Demeter39G, Here: The article does not meet the notability criteria and merit. The 1 source is not a reliable source that verifies notability. It is a forum like site for local community, which serves as self published blog. http://ruhollywood.com/2018/11/12/miss-russian-united-states/

4 source is a self published interview on an ads website, not reliable secondary source at all. http://www.spektrummagazine.com/fashion/getting-to-know-lika-osipova/

6 source is an article on a gossips site about dating life of a Russian media person, barelly mentioning the figure of the Wikipedia. https://www.eg.ru/showbusiness/66399/

Sources 7 and 8 are different links to the same poster to the city of the city. It is rather a primary sourse not a secondary source to verify notability. https://www.weho.org/home/showdocument?id=26793

Source 9 - a link to the so called LAF.It is not a film festival, it is a monthly paid competition, not recognized in media or the professional community. The link only mentions name of the person, and does not provide any evidence to verify notability. https://www.lafilmawards.net/single-post/june-2021

To summarize- 6 out of 9 sources used for the page do not meet even closely any possible notability verifications. The figure has barely any professional credits, zero recognition in American or Russian media beyond a self proclaimed pop star status. GrabUp - Talk 05:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Russia. GrabUp - Talk 05:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Based on my review, I found no in-depth coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources. Most of the cited sources are unreliable or fail to establish notability due to their lack of detailed coverage. I also searched for sources but found nothing that meets the criteria of WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 06:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per @Cullen328 recommendation at Teahouse. I already voted by nominating this article. GrabUp - Talk 06:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Grabup, because you simply copy and pasted the other users rationale from the talk page, your own vote is probably okay here. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's fine. Cullen was explaining about both sorts of cases, the ones where it would be ok and the ones where it would be irritating. This is not the one where it would be irritating. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. GrabUp - Talk 17:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing found for sourcing, this seems to suggest she might not even be a celebrity [83]. This is all I could find, a photo [84]. I agree with the nom, sources used are not helpful in establishing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Medium article is just an amazing analysis and a major exposé. Maybe she also paid for this Wikipedia article? GrabUp - Talk 13:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article was developed on 23 October 2019‎, if you check the article history there were many anonymous edits without a reference which was been undo by many other Wikipedia editors to protect it.

As mentioned in the previous vote, the Medium article as analysed good, but there many Medium article which mentioned by the concern person works, I have also added one article of it. It seems that this article has been targeted by anonymous person.Moharavi (talk)

  • Comment: @Moharavi Medium.com can’t establish notability as per WP:MEDIUM and the other source that you added is a video that obviously can’t make her notable. Also, I don’t think this article is being targeted; rather, it seems you are just promoting her. GrabUp - Talk 16:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir @GrabUp, If you know that Medium.com is not notable, then why have you mentioned "the Medium article as analysed good" I am humbly request a fare voting process, Please stay away, because your intention is not good. I totally accept if other person voted against it. Moharavi (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Moharavi, please assume good faith of GrabUp. Industrial Insect (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hope so. Moharavi (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moharavi, I never said that Medium is reliable or can establish notability. You are misunderstanding me. I am simply thanking editor Oaktree B for bringing that article here and expressing appreciation for the Medium article’s author’s detailed analysis. Why do you think my intentions are not good? I have never done anything to you that would warrant such an accusation. GrabUp - Talk 17:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The source identified as Source 6 features an image of individuals with no description or coverage at a gathering and does not showcase notability. https://www.emmys.com/tags/lika-osipova The Medium article this user added also fails to establish notability, as Medium is a blogging platform, not a recognized magazine, and lacks references to credible media that provide analytical content. The observation that each source appears to be sponsored raises concerns about how the page was approved initially. Additionally, @Grabup, I have suspicions this editor has a connection to the page or was paid for it. Given the apparent use of paid editing services. Furthermore, a sponsored segment about a restaurant this editor added is irrelevant to establishing the individual's notability within this category.
    Furthermore, the article added about the dating life of a male reality TV persona, barely mentioning the person, and yet used by Moharavi as the source to establish notability looks like advertising. He added that article as a source to " In 2021, She began her singing career with her debut songLights, for which she won Special Jury Award at the Los Angeles Film Awards." which is not even mentioned in the article upon closer inspection. 108.60.60.254 (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also verified the source you added from Vietnam. It says on the cover powered by Sunflower Media- Canadian advertising agency. I am a afraid, I believe it cannot be considered a source to verify notability if it is indicated by the platform itself it was paid by the advertising agency. Demeter39G (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot to log in. It looks indeed as advertising to me, as I stumbled upon the wikipedia page from an ad. There are no significant edits made anonymously to the page if you verify the history. Rather some content removed by an experienced editor Kuru, as non-WP:RS : unmarked paid placement / SEO. It creates non good intentions, as you just tried to mislead the editors. Demeter39G (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moharavi, Now you are lying, saying that you never said my intentions were not good. By removing the original comment where you said, "Please stay away, because your intentions are not good," you think no one will find out? Why you are deleting your comments after they are replied? GrabUp - Talk 07:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grabup looks like this is the user who created this page in the first place, suspect was paid for it. What do you think? Is there a way wikipedia marks paid articles?
    • 05:51, 23 October 2019 diff hist  +3,594‎  N Lika O ‎ ←Created page with '{{short description|Russian actress}} {{Infobox person | image = | name = Lika Osipova | birth_name = | birth_date = 30 September | birth_place =...' thank
    Demeter39G (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Demeter39G: I know that he created that article and left Wikipedia in September 2021. Suddenly, after more than two years, he came back when I nominated the article. Maybe he was paid. There's no need to do anything; surely the AfD will be closed as Delete. GrabUp - Talk 08:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grabup I follow this interest wise to see how many more paid fake sources someone will add. Someone removed and added same video source you commented on already. I'm impressed to be honest, did not expect someone's so invested. Demeter39G (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This article Passes WP:GNG, because she was in the covered of the magazine Harper's Bazaar, interviewed in NBC Los Angeles, also other few recently added reference.Evgeny72 (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    DELETE This is false information again. It was not covered by Harper Bazaar. See previous reply. HB -Vietnam is paid advertisement. It says on the cover powered by Sunflower Media- Canadian advertising agency. I am a afraid, I believe it cannot be considered a source to verify notability if it is indicated by the platform itself it was paid by the advertising agency.
    See GrabUp reply , the person was not interviewed by the NBC Los Angeles, it is a segment about a venue. GrabUp replied " other source that you added is a video that obviously can’t make her notable." Demeter39G (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Demeter39G you are the nominator which serves as you !vote. You cannot !vote again. S0091 (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, stop adding paid sources. It is self-advertising. The source you added- is not an reliable source. It is an advertising platform, with button with prices in the middle, and it has a paid staff note. "Lika O: The Star Charlie Walk Knew Would Shake the World from the Moment He Saw". thesource.com. Retrieved 2024-05-22. Demeter39G (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not delete the references, let other Wikipedia editors view and give their feedback like like you. If the other Wikipedia editors also consider same like you then it's fine, so give them to space to check it.Moharavi (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moharavi, You should read his explaination when he removed the link, he said “Same source added multiple times”, you cited the same link multiple times, that’s why he removed the dublicate link, he never removed both of them. The link was present there after his edit. GrabUp - Talk 17:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention none of them are helpful. For example, the Harper Bazaar article which is touted above is entirely was she says about herself and the local NBC piece is an interview. The Source contains blatant promo such as her infectious energy radiating through the crowd., she exudes an irresistible charisma that transcends the stage, Her music is as infectious as her personality, It’s a testament to her innate talent, her unwavering drive, and her ability to command a room with a mere glance and so on. S0091 (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did nor remove your reference. I removed the same link you added putting different name on it. You also just added the same paid source again. It says written on September 18, 2023 with a paid partnership with NextCo . It also has a big note that says quote "Advertising disclosure".
    1. "Lika O's "Grow" Takes the Spotlight: The Song Lighting Up Clubs Coast to Coast". laweekly.com. Retrieved 2024-05-25.
    Demeter39G (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources are interviews/based on what she says and/or unreliable with some being clear promotional puff pieces. S0091 (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It does appear to meet WP:BASIC, [85], [86], [87], [88], [89] and more. Sambroanna (talk) 09:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated above, none of those sources meet independent RS. S0091 (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Of the editors who have !voted, Moharavi is the creator so makes sense even though they have not edited since 2021. Evgeny72 has not edited in a year (May 2023 and look at their contributions) and Sambroanna has not edited in two years (May 2022). There is now also Ronyasppolice, a new editor whose only contributions is the recently created Draft:Md. (Muhammed) Nazmul Islam yet they have posted on note on the AfD's talk page stating the article should not be deleted. The other two are myself and GrabUp. Likewise, I am uncomfortable with the nominator, Demeter39G, who joined as WikiEd student back in 2020. After 2020, they made a couple COPYVIO edits to Who I Am Not in May 2023 so had to be revdel'd then nothing until this month in which they created a draft where they have a clear COI (renaming doesn't make one's previous contributions go away) and noming this article. Even though I agree with Demeter39G most of the sources are paid promo, it all stinks so scrutiny needs to be applied to all !votes. S0091 (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC) S0091 (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the editors, I do not agree. I was spammed with the wiki page and made objective points, commenting on sources that are beyond questionable and do not meet any reliable source requirements. Does someone who does not edit Wiki articles on regular basis cannot make nomination of the article that stinks scrutiny? Articles edited are from the same industry, and similar contributions. Demeter39G (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors (new or otherwise) can comment or !vote but given the history of almost all the accounts who have participated so far, scrutiny is needed. S0091 (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you, GrubUp,and @Oaktree b, and agree with nomination. The rest- history is questionable, as you write. Demeter39G (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When watching a tv show on a free site, the youtube video of the individual forcefully appeared as ad 8 times or so. Found same old comments from other people complaining like me. Googled, found nothing, came here. Can I remove not notable awards and unrelated sources? last 2 sources are irrelevant, do not provide in depth coverage, just mentions. Demeter39G (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She meets WP:GNG with sufficient reliable sources. She has been featured in reputable media like Harper's Bazaar Vietnam and NBC Los Angeles and received the Special Jury Award at the Los Angeles Film Awards. — AndrewPerrie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC). S0091 (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @S0091 do you find this meaningful, rather than bots? Repetition of same sources previously discussed which you agreed are unreliable. Considering same associate was permanently banned from Wiki for creating paid article. Demeter39G (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are reliable sources as well. I think she is eligible. DominicJoshua (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC) — DominicJoshua (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. S0091 (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where are the reliable sources @DominicJoshua? I agree with the point it seems like baseless paid votes, unfortunately. Demeter39G (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Demeter39G please read WP:BLUDGEON. There is no need for you comment on every Keep !vote and doing so can be considered disruptive. You have stated your opinion; let it be unless you are specifically asked a question or mentioned. I will keep an eye out for any WP:SPAs and tag as appropriate as I did with this editor. S0091 (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifications. I never nominated anything and don't know. Demeter39G (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with S0091 about the history of the nominator, which is why I did not nominate this article myself after their comment on AfD Talk. However, when I looked into it more and found nothing but promotional content, I thought I should support them, which is why I nominated this article. Currently, I see that the AfD is being targeted by the subject's PR team or their associates to blindly keep the article. These newcomers are likely being paid for their votes, so I suggest the closing admin ignore them. GrabUp - Talk 02:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I do not think Evgeny72 is paid but they do have a COI and am willing to email an admin explaining why. S0091 (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Past few hours the person who voted 'Delete' for the page has removed more references from the article. It seems like a target attack from the person who voted against the page. If the reference is not good for him, let other Wikipedia editors check it and then they decide if the article should stay or removed from Wikipedia. Removing more articles at the last day is not good for the person who nominated the page. So I have revert it and all Wikipedia editors check on it and let them decide it.Moharavi (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are the person who created the page and added reference that do not meet Wiki requirements. See my comment above, it seems like a target promo to me. I came here from annoying ads and made the nomination finding nothing, surprised @Moharavi accusing rational comments of experienced editors to be " in bad faith". How is the source 11 about a congressman that barely mentions the person from the article, about a non-notable or recognizable event is related. - "Congressman Henry Waxman to Be Keynote Speaker at the 11th Annual Russian Style Festival's Community Awards Presentation". weho.org. Retrieved 2019-10-10. Demeter39G (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More than 20 Wikipedia has the reference from 'weho.org' and in the 12th source (which was deleted by you) was mentioned that the Former United States Representative Henry Waxman at the 11th Annual Russian Style Festival’s Community Awards Presentation, in this event Lika Osipova received 'The Role Model of the Year Award'. So please do not delete the reference, let all other Wikipedia editors view it and let them decide if the article stay or remove. Moharavi (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    'The Role Model of the Year Award' at the local Russian board. It is not a notable "award", and the source about a dating life of the American reality TV guy is not a source that verified notability, and picture too. Stop misleading people. Rules are the same for everyone. Special Jury Award at the Los Angeles Film Awards is not a real or notable award too, it barely mentions the individual among 100 others. There is no reliable sources covering that. As a comment to all the editors to check. Demeter39G (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect your comment, in your view it's not a good source, but in my view that source is good and it also used for more than 20 other Wikipedia article. If you delete the reference, then how come other Wikipedia editors can check both our views and decide it. As a comment to all the editors to not delete the references, let everyone view the references and let them decide it, if you delete the reference then it means you are forcing your views on them.Moharavi (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever, I see meaningful discussion is pointless. If the fact the Weho.org was used for different purposes in 20 different articles has no relation to this. Demeter39G (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This thread is a mess, but the sourcing in this article is even worse. Highly promotional, trivial mentions, etc. -- that AllHipHop article by "staff writer" screams pay-to-play. (Even if it's legit, the language is so over the top there's no way it can be treated as an independent source.) Further searching brings up nothing useful for GNG, NBIO or NMUSIC. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:14, 28 May 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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Pingray (CIO)[edit]

Previous AfDs for this article:
Hugo Pingray (CIO) (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)

Recreation of Hugo Pingray, with the same promotional/notability issues as in February. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:28, 21 May 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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replace Sinema Project[edit]

Replace Sinema Project (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)

Doesn't meet notability guidelines; PAC largely became irrelevant to releated election; could be merged into background for 2024 United States Senate election in Arizona RenewIR (talk) 04:04, 21 May 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.
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 Delta State Statesmen and Lady Statesmen#Football. as a viable ATD. History is preserved if folks want to merge Star Mississippi 01:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Delta State Statesmen in the NFL draft[edit]

List of Delta State Statesmen in the NFL draft (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)

No evidence that this grouping meets WP:NLIST, the article is just a straight copy of the single database source. Can at most be merged to Delta State Statesmen and Lady Statesmen#Football if this is deemed of some importance after all. As can be seen at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 420#DraftHistory.com, there are concerns about the source anyway, so new creations based on this source should probably be stopped. Fram (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are multiple sources in regards to Delta State football players being drafted ([90], [91], [92]), though I agree that a lot of the lists should be expanded upon (which myself and a lot of others are very much trying to work on), and turned into FL's. In regards to this list, I would not be completely opposed to a merge/redirect, but for now I just view it as a Stub. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What's required for list notability is reliable secondary sources doscussing the grouping, not the members of the group. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN due to a lack of secondary sources. The sources cited here along with the one in the article are all primary. Let'srun (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. LISTN asks that "Delta State Statesmen in the NFL draft" be discussed significantly in IRS as a topic in itself; separate sources on individual Statesmen in the draft are not sufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:55, 21 May 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.
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 keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hanna's Into the Wild[edit]

Jack Hanna's Into the Wild (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)

Fails WP:GNG; no sources. Merge with Jack Hanna. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Bannon, Anne Louise (2022-02-24). "Parents' Guide to Jack Hanna's Into the Wild". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

      The review notes: "While she show offers interesting information (for example, one episode talks about how to tell the difference between black and white rhinos), the overall feeling is that there's something missing. That Hanna is a strong cheerleader for animal conservation and educating kids about animals is without doubt -- but there's a difference between being a cheerleader and being an apologist. Hanna routinely dances around more substantive issues."

    2. Willow, Molly (2007-11-03). "Jack Hanna and family go global for new series". The Columbus Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

      The article notes: "With his latest TV foray, the syndicated series Jack Hanna's Into the Wild, Hanna is making use of his traveling companions. In addition to his daughter Kathaleen, who appeared often on her dad's previous series, Animal Adventures, wife Suzi and daughters Suzanne and Julie are part of the new show. ... Guy Nickerson, whose company Spectrum in Tampa, Fla., worked on Animal Adventures with Hanna for 10 years, helped him create the new series, which is shown in 85 percent of the country. ... The series is filmed in high-definition and consists of the Hanna family's travels to learn about animals. ... An early episode included a visit to Rwanda, and episodes scheduled to run in the spring were filmed at the Wilds conservation center in southeastern Ohio and at the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium."

    3. Morse, Hannah (2018-08-21). "Latest episode Jack Hanna show features Loggerhead Marinelife Center". The Palm Beach Post. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

      The article notes: "The latest episode of “Jack Hanna’s Into The Wild” features Loggerhead Marinelife Center. ... The episode, titled “Saving Sea Turtles,” takes viewers on a tour of the center’s work and shows Solana’s release. The Hannas also watch a sea turtle nesting on the beach in the episode, said Rachel Csaszar, who works in Hanna’s office at the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium. ... The show is in its 11th season."

    4. "'Jungle' Jack Hanna Brings 'Into the Wild' to Ithaca". The Ithaca Journal. 2016-03-01. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

      The article notes: ""Jack Hanna's Into the Wild," debuted. This unscripted series shows Hanna and his family as they explore the corners of the globe and animals and cultures. "Jack Hanna's Into the Wild" is the recipient of three Emmy Awards, winning in the category of Outstanding Children's Series."

    5. Pursell, Chris (2006-12-18). "Hanna Returns From the Wilds". Television Week. Vol. 25, no. 47. p. 3. ISSN 1544-0516. EBSCOhost 510693361.

      The article notes: " Longtime syndication staple Jack Hanna is partnering with Trifecta Media and Entertainment for a new original half-hour weekly series set to launch in fall 2007. The series, "Jack Hanna's Into the Wild," marks Mr. Hanna's first new project since the 1990s and will follow his adventures around the world in search of the ultimate animal experience. Unlike previous series featuring the animal expert, this series will include Mr. Hanna's family on the travels. Among the crew who will participate are Mr. Hanna's wife, Suzi, and daughters Kathaleen, Suzanne and Julie, as well as longtime crew members and confidantes Glenn Nickerson and Dan Devaney. ... Trifecta will offer 22 half-hour installments of "Into the Wild," available for broadcast during the 2007-08 television season on a full barter basis. The company will handle all advertising sales for the program through its New York office, headed by Trifecta partner Michael Daraio."

    6. Less significant coverage:
      1. Maas, Jennifer (2023-12-19). "Jack Hanna's 400-Episode 'Into the Wild' and 'Wild Countdown' Library Acquired by Hearst Media Production Group (Exclusive)". Variety. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

        The article notes: "Legendary wildlife host Jack “Jungle Jack” Hanna’s TV franchise library, including 400 episodes of “Jack Hanna’s Into the Wild” and “Jack Hanna’s Wild Countdown” has been acquired by Hearst Media Production Group."

      2. Larsen Stoddard, Aimee (2010-03-11). "Jungle Jack Hanna". Salt Lake City Weekly. ProQuest 363111415. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

        The article notes: "He is currently hosting the TV series Jack Hanna's Into the Wild, which received a 2008 Daytime Emmy for Outstanding Children's Series."

      3. Albiniak, Paige (2009-11-01). "Trifecta Jumping into First-Run Programming". Broadcasting & Cable. ProQuest 225320084. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.

        The article notes: "Mystery Hunters will air in Trifecta's one-hour E/I block along with Animal Atlas. The company had been distributing Jack Hanna's Into the Wild in that block, but chose to stop distribution of that show due to low ratings."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jack Hanna's Into the Wild to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's evidence, didn't review all of it but there appears to be enough for GNG. Will review my comment if something significantly changes. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article wasn't up to spec but the show is notable. Niafied (talk) 04:43, 21 May 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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TalkLocal[edit]

AfDs for this article:
TalkLocal (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)

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Previously deleted at AfD but I could not verify whether G4 applied. There is some not-totally-worthless Washington Post coverage [93] [94], but (1) the company is Maryland-based and so WaPo coverage is not as significant as it otherwise would be and (2) we need multiple independent sources. The rest are either unreliable or non-independent. My source checks covered both "TalkLocal" and its former name "Seva Call". – Teratix ₵ 05:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Maryland. – Teratix ₵ 05:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The WaPo coverage falls under ORGTRIV (product/funding announcements) IMO. Doesn't seem to be much after excluding the press releases in the TWL databases either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alpha3031 The article with funding in the title is not just a funding announcement. It has 10 (albeit kinda short) paragraphs unrelated to funding. The 2.6M is probably just a way for "clickbait".
    Both of these sources do seem like borderline significant coverage, but as the nominator said, I'd prefer to see other media outlets' coverage. The only other sources I see are tech.co and Bisnow, which seem questionable to me. Thus, I'm currently thinking of a weakest keep. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do want to emphasise the WaPo sources are from its Capital Business column, which focuses on businesses local to Washington. I worry that if we were to take these as notability-providing coverage this would lead to a situation where run-of-the-mill businesses based in areas that happen to host high-quality newspapers will be disproportionately deemed notable. This seems to me exactly why we have WP:AUD. – Teratix ₵ 07:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaron Liu, I'm not sure if this is some sort of misunderstanding but any "funding announcement" is pretty much all like that. Like, literally just take a random sample of PR Newswire or TechCrunch or something, they all take a few sentences about the company from the press release or quotes, otherwise nobody, even the people who are interested in that kind of thing, would read it because there wouldn't be enough context to know what the company is. That doesn't make it independent or significant coverage. Basically every funding announcement is like this. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But that is way more than a few sentences about the company. It has a lot more content than the average funding adcopy, and doesn't put the funding at the forefront either; in fact, it's not even news-format. If we removed the funding part from the article title, would you agree? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. My assessment is that it would still be ORGTRIV even if it didn't talk about funding at all, because it's still substantially identical to other examples of routine press releases and other announcements. I'd defer to an assessment from RSN though, if consensus there says otherwise. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how it's substantially identical, and I doubt that RSN assesses notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The noticeboard can be a venue to discuss sources' independence in the context of determining notability, see WP:ORGIND. – Teratix ₵ 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I really don't know what more there is to say. Let's suppose we ignored WP:AUD and WP:ORGTRIV altogether and just took the Post sources to be significant coverage. In that case we would still need another source, because NCORP requires multiple independent sources (coverage from the same outlet does not count more than once). No-one has provided these sources and there's no reason to expect they'll be out there – the business didn't get Post coverage because it's a notable business, it was covered because it's based near Washington. @Aaron Liu: even with the most generous assumptions about the Post sourcing, I still don't see how this business would be notable. – Teratix ₵ 06:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant guideline is wp:MULTSOURCES. Thanks, I now support delete. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm unable to locate any sources that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for notability. HighKing++ 13:30, 23 May 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.
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. I will not draftify given the copyright concerns. Star Mississippi 01:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devapāla's Campaigns against Pratiharas[edit]

Devapāla's Campaigns against Pratiharas (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)

A copy of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala invasion of Kannauj. Same content, fails WP:GNG, poorly found in reliable sources. Part of Tripartite struggle, can be added to it. Imperial[AFCND] 14:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No results for "Devapāla's Campaigns against Pratiharas" in Google scholar, JSTOR [95], and literally zero result from Google keyword searching. Hardly found few sources (including what present in the article), that barely mentioned no more than two or three lines about the so called "Campaign". And passes GNG? See WP:SIGCOV. Imperial[AFCND] 15:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is very notable and has been given significant coverage in reliable sources therefore it passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.
  • The Gurjara lords against whom Devapāla fought must have been the Pratīhāra rulers. It is possible that Nagabhața II tried to assert his power after the death of Dharmapāla and if, as some scholars believe, he transferred his capital to Kanauj, he must have achieved some success. But Devapāla soon re-established the Pala supremacy, and it was possibly after his (Devapāla's) successful campaign against the Pratihāras that he advanced to the Hūņa and Kamboja princi- palities. Nāgabhața's son, Ramabhadra, probably also had his kingdom invaded by Devapāla. The next Pratihāra king Bhoja also, in spite of his initial success, suffered reverses at the hands of Devapāla, and could not restore the fortunes of his family so long as the Pala emperor was alive. Thus Devapāla successfully fought with three generations of Pratihāra rulers, and maintained the Pala supremacy in Northern India.[1][2]
Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It is notable because I said so." Industrial Insect (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore WP:RS which has significant coverage about the topic of the article and just say "It is notable because I said so.", wow.
The article is notable for several reasons. First, it has significant coverage from WP:RS. Second, It passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I hope this helps clarify why the article meets the notability criteria. Based Kashmiri (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article appears to be successfully meet the criteria set forth in Wikipedia's Notability guidelines and the issues raised in the nomination do not appear to be evident within the article itself.
Khotanese26 (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two mundane keep votes so far, one from the creator and another from a very new user (?!). For my money, I'd say to delete, as the sources presented in the article, and with my own lookups, led to nothing of substantial use that can justify a rigid keep. X (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Majumdar, R. C. (2009). History and Culture of the Indian People, Volume 04, The Age Of Imperial Kanauj. Public Resource. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. pp. 50–51.
  2. ^ Others, Muzaffar H. Syed & (2022-02-20). History of Indian Nation : Ancient India. K.K. Publications. p. 287.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only found 2,3 lines about this article in the referenced sources. The author is using words like Possibly and we are not keeping the article which is not definite abt the information, Secondly the editor of this article doing his interpretation and adding headings like devpala conflict with X, devpala conflict with y which is not even in the sources.Violetmyers (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: I think I can improve this article based on the concern raised in this discussion, let me work on this article further. I'd request the closer to please draftify it so I can improve this article. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 04:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyright Problems: Due to multiple occurrences of of close paraphrasing, particularly in the lead, I have sent the article to copyright problems. I was originally just going to remove the offending material and make a note of which sources I removed here, so here's a link to the one I removed before realizing the extent of the issues. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:00, 27 May 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.
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 merge‎ to Germany–Mexico relations. ✗plicit 00:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German interventions in the Mexican Revolution[edit]

German interventions in the Mexican Revolution (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)

Synthetic. There seems to be insufficient treatment of German interference in the Mexican Revolution as a unified concept, only each incident. 📴 Remsense诉 10:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge: In agreement with Mccapra, sourced information should be merged into Germany–Mexico relations. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 16:35, 25 May 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.
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. The arguments essentially boil down to WP:NACTOR (for keep) vs. WP:GNG (for deletion), with one editor further disputing that the bar for NACTOR has been met. With a narrow majority of !votes favoring deletion on grounds of failing to meet GNG, delete has the upper hand in terms of both numbers and arguments, noting that like most WP:SNG provisions, NACTOR states that an actor meeting its prescriptions merely may be notable and primarily defers to GNG. A further consideration pushing towards a delete over no consensus outcome here is that the article is a WP:BLP. signed, Rosguill talk 15:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sukaina Khan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sukaina Khan (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)

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. Previously deleted via AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sukaina Khan —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Suqaynah Khan making waves". Magazine - The Weekly.
  • I acknowledge that she is an actress and has appeared in TV dramas, which naturally garners some media coverage. However, this interview alone ( a primary source) is definitely not sufficient to establish that she had significant roles. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per My, oh my! (Mushy Yank).182.182.97.3 (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

IP blocked. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and found in BEFORE fail WP:SIRS, nothing from neutral, independent, reliable sources addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found promo material, interviews, name mentions/listings, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  12:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the complete lack of discussion since the 2nd relisting, this is less like a 3rd relisting (which, of course, it technically is) and more an extension of the 2nd listing. It would be good to have some other views because some of what has gone on so far seems a bit disruptive (not pointing fingers).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I will stipulate the subject exists, but I can't find sufficient sourcing to meet GNG, ANYBIO, or NACTOR. Keep assertions acquire the BURDEN of presenting RS (or at least proof of RS existing). Nothing applied or presented here puts us past this bar. BusterD (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - The nominator mentioned in here that seriously popular Pakistani TV shows like Champions with Waqar Zaka, XPOSED, Living on the Edge (Sabse Himmat Wala Kon?), King of Street Magic, Desi Kudiyan, The Cricket Challenge and Video On Trial - just to name a few. Even though these shows might not have their own WP articles but they have definitely received coverage from various RS. She is winner of one of the shows mentioned by the nominator, "Desi Kuriyan". So rationale provided as "No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc" in this WP:AfD doesn't makes sense when nominator accepted that show she won have received coverage from RS in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waqar Zaka (3rd nomination).182.182.63.7 (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • 182.182.63.7, OK but you still need to backup your claims with evidence from RS. First, prove that she won the show. Second, demonstrate that the show itself received sig/ in-depth coverage. Cheers! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:07, 27 May 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.
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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Claude Saclag[edit]

Jean Claude Saclag (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)

Subject does not meet WP:NKICK criteria, as well as does not have significant coverage. Passing mentions and event results are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Lekkha Moun (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Philippines. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to WP:WPMA/N, I believe he meets criteria 3 & 4. #3 because he is a former world champion (2014 Sanda World Cup Champion) and #4 because he has won multiple medals from tournaments such as the Asian Games and the Southeast Asian Games. D-Flo27 (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Asian Games, SEA Games and "Wushu Championships" do not constitute enough weight in martial arts to warrant a wiki page. We have to rely on WP:GNG and subject needs to have significant coverage in independent and reliable media outlet. Lekkha Moun (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? The Asian Games and the SEA Games are the biggest tournaments in their regions. There are other Asian martial artists who have claimed notability through these tournaments such as Agatha Wong, Sun Peiyuan, Naorem Roshibina Devi, and a lot more. D-Flo27 (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read on the top of WP:WPMA/N, it states that this is " an essay on notability". It is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guidelines and in no way supersedes WP:BIO. Therefore as of right now, their discipline "Wushu" do not have established notability guidelines. I have not taken a look at the three other subjects you mentioned, but the only way for them to have a stand alone article is by meeting WP:GNG. As for Jean Claude Saclag, routine coverage of events and lack of WP:SIGCOV

, I don't see indication that we have the type of coverage required to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Best regards.

 Lekkha Moun (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete He's definitely had some success, but I don't think enough to show he's WP notable. Coverage basically consists of results reporting and coverage of him wanting to turn pro--all of which seems fairly typical. His three SEA gold medals in kickboxing were apparently as an amateur and WP:NKICK specifically states "Kickboxers who have an amateur background exclusively are not notable unless the person has been the subject examined in detail (more than a single paragraph) in several reliable third-party sources (at least four), excluding local publications." Saclag appears to fail that criteria. The fact that others have articles with similar achievements falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. His bronze at the wushu world championships is good, but the Sanda World Cup is an invitational event for 8 fighters per division and carries less weight (at least to me). I've held off voting because I was hoping other references might come to light, but right now I'm just not seeing him meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:26, 21 May 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.
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. Ultimately, articles are Kept if there are reliable sources that can establish a subject's notability and that doesn't seem to be the case here as assessed by participating editors. Liz Read! Talk! 07:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PackCC[edit]

PackCC (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)

page does not seem to meet the nobility criteria and most content is copied from the GitHub page; the author of the page is also the creator of the software Howrued (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the page content is encyclopedic enough even if it was derived from GitHub. Whether to be copied or not is irrelevant to the argument unless it violates copyrights. Next, the page has been supported at least by several editors, even if it might have been problematic that it was created by the software developer. Arithy (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the support of the page from other people has mostly been adding links. i think that it being entirely derived and created by the developer (you) stands as a violation of WP:FORUM and/or WP:PROMO. imo, having it in the Comparison of parser generators is sufficient. Howrued (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also, i think it's a bit dishonest that you didn't mention that you are both the developer of the software and the creator of the page in your reply. Howrued (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The points I'd like to say are:
  • The improvement of the page by others is a very important fact that proves the page interests several users.
  • Since there are several voluntary editors, there should be much more viewers.
  • This page should attract users because the editors wanted to improve the page content even if the changes were quite small.
  • There have been slight changes because the page content has almost no critical defect.
The facts and rational inferences above justify the existence of the page. Arithy (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"i think it's a bit dishonest": it's irrelevant to this argument. I expect you to argue more logically. [ I'm honest because I use the identical user name between GitHub and Wikipedia ;-) ] Arithy (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The additional point I'd like to say is:
  • We should see the current status, not the origin.
Arithy (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as i mentioned before, articles being created by the person who made the thing in question is enshrined in policy as being bad. even if there was minor housekeeping, it doesn't change the fact that there is a clear conflict of interest in the article and it otherwise doesn't really establish any notability. Howrued (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the first paragraph lists features, but i don't think having those features simply grants it notability. if that were true, anyone could make a parser generator with those features and then immediately make a wikipedia page for it. Howrued (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's just your sentiments regarding software.
According to your criterion, no one can create any pages. Is it really what Wikipedia should be? Arithy (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i don't really understand what you mean by this. my criterion (and wikipedia's)?isn't that nobody should create pages—it's that people shouldn't create pages for their own personal projects that lack any verifiable sources nor any claims for notability. Howrued (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy does not say prohibition, just say difficulty to guarantee the content objectivity. I think it is already guaranteed by other users.
By the way, I cannot understand that you continue to insist on attacking the page using account suddenly created few days before. I cannot help wondering if you have other intention. Arithy (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i understand your concern, and i will not be dishonest and say that the primary reason i created this account wasn't to make this afd. i do not, however, have anything against you personally. i just think that the article violates the aforementioned policies, which are grounds for deletion: see WP:DEL-REASON. Howrued (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the article contains a single reference, which makes no mention of packcc and only says that packrat parsers in general can support left-recursion. Howrued (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article's creator wrote a lengthy argument in favor of keeping the article that concluded with "I expect [the nominator] to argue more logically". Ironically, nothing they wrote logicially addresses the question of notability. Like StreetcarEnjoyer, I couldn't find any significant coverage.
HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I can't find that this has any significant coverage. Does not seem to meet general notability criteria. Mgp28 (talk) 22:14, 21 May 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.
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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 23:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Castolin Eutectic[edit]

Castolin Eutectic (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 article has had maintained tags on it since 2019. While some promotional language has been removed, the article still only cites primary sources. Since the notability has been in question for 5 years, I think it might be time to review whether this article should remain. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to verify the notability of the company, resulting in an article that is largely promotional in nature.--Assirian cat (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article needs improvement, but there are enough sources to keep the article. [100] is a (fully-available) Google Books result talking about the company's products in the US during WWII, there are dozens of similar references (intermingled with dozens of their ads in magazines in the 20th century) in Google Books. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:43, 21 May 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.
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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agha Mustafa Hassan[edit]

Agha Mustafa Hassan (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)

At first glance, the actor appears to be well-known with numerous roles in television serials, films, and what not. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes evident that the subject only had minor roles in the majority of those television serials and films, thus failing to meet NACTOR. Anyone wishing to argue based on GNG must provide THREE, i repeat, THREE of the best coverages in RS -only. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator is harassing me by calling me UPE/sock on numerous platforms without any single evidence and nominating all articles created/edited by me despite meeting criteria. As for this AFD, he is clearly meeting WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. I am presenting some sources from reliable newspapers for proving my point.

  • The News International [108] Libraa2019 (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Libraa2019, Can you please provide WP:THREE best coverage that you believe is sufficient to meet GNG ? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 23:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can self choose three best coverage from the ones i mentioned above as they all are best sources and are sufficient to meet GNG. Libraa2019 (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Libraa2019, It's up to you to provide the THREE best coverage that you believe should be good enough to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • All of them are best coverage. These sources are covering this actor in-depth. i presented more than what you have asked. Daily Times, Dawn News, Daily Pakistan, all of them are reliable and authentic newspapers & These sources are available in B, C and Good rated Pakistani articles.. Libraa2019 (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Libraa2019, Either you're not willing to grasp my point or perhaps simply refuse to WP:LISTEN. Is it a strategy to simply ignore, hoping the AfD will close with no consensus? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • Such things applied to you. In personal disagreements you've gone too far. Editors have told you on other AFD's that i presented more than what you asked [109] [110] [111] [112] but you have decided not to listen any. I said it personal because you are Labelling every authentic source as unreliable, every role as minor and hoping to delete articles despite of these articles meeting criteria. Libraa2019 (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am providing some other reliable sources which i found during research.
  • Bol News [115] [116] Libraa2019 (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Offering numerous sources won't necessarily strengthen the argument. Can you provide THREE excellent sources instead? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The history at mutiple AFD's indicates that i provide authentic sources and you reject so please leave some things to others. Libraa2019 (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And you mentioned at Imaam Mazari's AFD that Coverage doesn't always have to be in-depth [117] but contineously asking me to provide in-depth coverage. Still i presented multiple reliable sources with in-depth coverage. Libraa2019 (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:NACTOR seems met, with various significant roles (although not lead) in notable productions. (Also, WP:THREE is an WP:Essay.) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Sources are casting announcements or interviews/based on what he says and one of the sources used in the article does not mention him. A few of the sources do mention his role in Tere Bin (2022 TV series) but it's trivial coverage and only one role. In order to meet WP:NACTOR it has to be shown his roles in multiple notable productions were significant which is proven through sources that have written about him/his roles which is lacking here. S0091 (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sir its consequently third time where Saqib nominated my creation in retaliation & you voted delete. I am unable to satisfy you despite providing multiple authentic sources which are covering him in-depth. Sources are not only interviews like Daily Times states, Agha Mustafa Hassan has no doubt made his mark in the industry. The young actor and model has been winning the hearts of people since 2016 due to his exceptional acting skills. Dawn News wrote, Agha Mustafa Hasan made his acting debut with the 2016 popular drama 'Sang e Mar Mar', after which he showed his acting chops in several popular dramas and theaters as well as films. He has played supporting roles in dramas including Pinjara, Neeli Zinda Hai, More Siyan, Mere Own, Run, Silla Mohabbate, Sar Rah and Tere Bin. Eastern Eye said Acclaimed Pakistani actor Agha Mustafa Hassan started off his career in theatre and then made a winning transition to television with popular drama serials like Sila-e-Mohabbat, Dour, Neeli Zinda Hai, Kahin Deep Jaley and Mehboob Aapke Qadmon Main. The versatile performer continues to take on new challenges on-screen, but also has a close connection to good content as an audience member, And the rest of the sources also covering him significantly. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Libraa2019 Thanks. Can you link to those articles and do you have another one that talks about his career? I'll take a look. S0091 (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure Sir, i will link that to article and thats the only issue, the BLP needs references and Should be tagged for "Additional Citations". It does'nt mean we just delete it despite multiple coverage on google. I have mentioned many sources in this AFD, please review them and i will surely add them to BLP. And please dont read sources on this BLP as it was my initial days and some one else also added one fake source in which subject has no where mentioned, I will surely work into it. But due to this nomination, I have provided all the required sources in this AFD for evaluation. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Libraa2019 Like I said, I will take a look if you can link to the articles you are referencing. If they are listed above, please let me know which ones because there are more than one DT and Dawn listed. While I did look at all them, I may missed something. S0091 (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Respected S0091, as requested, attaching few sources. Daily Times [118], Eastern Eye [119], DAWN News [120], DAWN News [121] Libraa2019 (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The Daily Times has role by-line (Web Desk) and is a press release announcing he has been cast in Neeli Zinda Hai so is a primary source and not independent. Here is another article which is almost word-for-word the same. The Eastern Eye is also a role by-line and is list of Hassan's favourite 10 TV shows so primary with a brief introduction listing some of the shows he has acted in. The first Dawn is a role by-line (Entertainment Desk) and based on an interview so primary. It lists some of the shows he has acted in and does state His negative role in Tere Bin, Malik Zubair, was well received but doesn't state by whom. The second Dawn is about what he said during his appearance on Sama TV's morning show so primary and also lists shows he has acted in and states His negative role in 'Tere Bin', Malik Zubair, was highly appreciated. I note that the two Dawn's were published years apart, one in 2021 and one in 2023 and the portion that talks about is career is almost word-for-word the same (what you quoted above) which suggests it is a standard a blurb. None of these demonstrate the significance of his roles outside of maybe Tere Bin but even those are trivial mentions. S0091 (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      All of them are not primary, i am doubting your assessment and if they are primary then what exactly are the secondary sources. Also you can check this sources too DAWN News [122], Dawn Images [123], The News International [124], Geo News [125],Daily Aaj [126], Bol News [127] [128] Libraa2019 (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      See PSTS. Primary sources can be used sparingly but do not establish notability. Analysis of his work/life would be secondary but press releases, interviews/what he says are primary. I will find some examples and share them with you on your talk page. As for these additional sources, one is the same Dawn from above and the other two are mentions in a list of cast members. S0091 (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Libraa2019, Please do not cite BOL News in future discussions as it is a WP:DEPREC. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Saqib it is not deprecated as that requires a formal RFC at RSN but it is unreliable (WP:GUNREL). S0091 (talk) 14:51, 27 May 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.
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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirimongkol Rattanapoom[edit]

Sirimongkol Rattanapoom (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)

Nothing has been written that suggests notability, and any argument like there being sources that are full-length can shake the elephant in the room, the Catch-22 if you will: if this player is so notable, why isn't he playing? He's played zero minutes this season in Belgium's amateur third division. He has no international appearances, and in all due respect it's easier to be chosen for Thailand than for Brazil or Spain. He's 22 this month, so if he's some special player who passes WP:GNG without any professional appearances, when are they going to come? I know people like to make articles about teenagers at big clubs, based on hype press, but a 22-year-old at an amateur Belgian club is clearly a different kettle of fish. While I disagree with the old WP:NFOOTY regulation that a player was notable as soon as they made one professional appearance, it's a good measure at least. Also bear in mind that [129] this source comes from King Power, the Thai company that owns his Belgian club, so it is not independent anyway. Additionally, the creator made this article as an incomprehensible quote farm from Google Translate, suggesting an unfamiliarity with Thai sources. [130] Unknown Temptation (talk) 09:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], among manu more Thai sources. Clearly sigifficant young player in Thailand with ongoing career. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on Google Translate: source 1 is brief coverage about 4 Thai players playing in Belgium; source 2 is not independent as per the nom; source 3 is paywalled; source 4 is routine transfer coverage; and source 5 is brief coverage about him playing for Thailand under-23. Where is the significant coverage? GiantSnowman 20:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know how you interpreted the first source to be "brief coverage about 4 Thai players playing in Belgium", it is about him and most of the text is solely about his background alone. The third source is also not paywalled. The fourth source is sedifnityl not "routine transfer coverage" since he joined the team much earlier and it goes into his background as well. Clearly sigifficant young player in Thailand with ongoing career who has played for the Thaialnd olympic team and is one of few players abroad. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An Olympic team is an under-23 team. Footballers at the Olympics get some coverage, but per Football at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament, the only Thai going there at all is a VAR. As I said before, it's not hard to play senior football for Thailand, so if this guy is so great, why isn't he? Why are we treating someone as an exceptional promise for the future if he can't play for Thailand or for a third-division Belgian club when he's 22? Is that really an "ongoing career"? Unknown Temptation (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, the sources are good. Your other argument doesnt make sense because there are lots of notable footballers with good sources with Wikipedia pages who have not played for Thailand and saying its "not hard to play for Thailand" is completely dismissive. On the contrary, he is considered skilled enough to play abroad, which few Thai players do. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I know people like to make articles about teenagers at big clubs, based on hype press – that may be the case, but I'm not sure there's any policy-based guidance that defines "hype press" or categorises them as unreliable for the GNG's purposes. That said, the Ballthai article appears to be the only in-depth piece of independent coverage. The others are brief updates and short interviews. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the Ballthai one, the other sources contain secondary coverage like "showed impressive form... is a versatile player in Midfield position Able to play both offense and defense. His highlight is his sharp reading of the game. And the interception is quite accurate. He is the third generation product of the Fox Hunt program" etc. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, they're brief. Maybe they could be considered significant taken together, but that's up to interpretation; I'm not yet convinced either way. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep—I tend to side with the argument that this type of coverage doesn't have much meaning, but there is clearly coverage of this player individually that is not necessarily local, part of match reports, or passing. The quality might be poor, but taken as a whole, there is enough coverage to meet the most basic requirements of WP:SIGCOV. Otherwise, I would vote to draftify based on WP:TOOSOON. Anwegmann (talk) 21:40, 28 May 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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Bernhardt[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Cesar Bernhardt (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)

Article recreated Sadads (talk) 00:48, 21 May 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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taleh Ziyadov[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete. All available sources are either primary or routine/trivial coverage of the Baku ports mentioning him briefly in his official capacity, not significant coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't have significant coverage. Online sources only contains the person's interviews and some name mentions. --Sura Shukurlu (talk) 17:31, 25 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_May_21&oldid=1226182826"