Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< September 28	September 30 >

Guide to deletion

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brosthrone

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

Fail WP:NSINGER. There is literally nothing to inherently confer that here, and no source to establish WP:GNG. I looked through the sources and all I could find is unreliable PRs and advertorials for a more or less up-and-coming singer-songwriter. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Subject notable with their major 'single' release, also few reliable independent sources mention them in their newspapers. Tesleemah talk 07:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sources aren't great, might be WP:TOOSOON.-KH-1 (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Subject is notable as per WP:SINGER. Mevoelo talk 08:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elo, which criteria does it satisfy? Best, reading beans 11:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject has received coverage of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country; has a song that gained national recognition; and has even featured several other independent top-rated artists, sources also show notability. Still working on improving the article by adding more sources. Best, Mevoelo (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do we have sources to back up these keep !votes?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable artist. The references are subpar and does not seem to qualify GNG. The rationales claimed by the creator of the article for meeting WP:NSINGER is not found anywhere; there’s been no recognition for an international concert tour, or a national tour nor is there any recognition for this upcoming artist in Nigeria (unless there’s any national recognition). This WP:TOOSOON, IMO. B.Korlah (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources, which indicates a lack of notability and relevance for leavr on Wikipedia --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, which suggests that it does not meet the notability criteria --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]
@Jiaoriballisse Hi there. Strike one of your !vote please, you just made a duplicate !vote. I know it is an oversight :) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources present and in a search for more sources do not satisfy the general notability criteria. Best, Reading Beans 14:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Up coming Nigerian singer with no single hit record not to talk of Wp:Gng.--Gabriel (……?) 17:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:24, 6 October 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 proposed merger did not receive any support. Owen× ☎ 21:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All Progressive Youth Association

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

Google scholar has no sources and neither does the Turkish article Chidgk1 (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to fail WP:GNG, I was only able to find passing mentions in Bianet. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources at all. Xegma(talk) 18:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - again, lack of references is not on its own a criteria for deletion. The article as it exist right now doesn't fully explain the nature of the group. TÜM-İGD is the youth wing of the TKP (1920) (ex Ürün Sosyalist Dergi [tr], one of the main remnants of the old Communist Party of Turkey and as such, unrelated to the current Communist Party of Turkey). It's a nationwide movement, that is notable in its own right. I note material on 2012 May Day, 2010 YÖK action (the Bianet coverage mentioned above would have been for https://bianet.org/haber/students-take-the-streets-on-30th-anniversary-of-yok-133750 for 2011 protest presumably). Here coverage in Yeni Dünya, here coverage on 2006 protests in Hurriyet, Evrensel, Milliyet, Cumhuriyet, Yeni Safak, etc, etc. Most of coverage is coverage on various protests of the group over the past years. --Soman (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete / merge - There is a much better written page for Progressive Youth Association, which I take to be the same organisation given that one of the the best links given by Soman is to the same organisation magazine for both. There seems to be the perennial problem of that source not being independent, but it seems likely that Soman or another editor might be able to fix that if they do their best to search out independent news sources in Turkish which would be more difficult for us non-Turkish speakers. With an organisation of this age I have to believe that they exist, and as Soman says, the criteria is that sources exist, not that they are cited currently in an article. I see no point keeping this clearly inferior article though, when a better one on the same topic exists.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get any further opinions about this possible merge? Would a redirect be appropriate instead of deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not merge. I think Soman is conflating two different groups. From my understanding of the equivalent articles on the Turkish Wikipedia (thank you, Google Translate), the All Progressive Youth Association claims the legacy of the Progressive Youth Association, but they aren't the same group because the Progressive Youth Association was banned in the 1970s and the All Progressive Youth Association was founded in the 2000s. It's worth noting that the notability of the modern group is questioned on the Turkish Wikipedia as well. The only defence offered so far is of the original group, not the subject of the article in question. Yue🌙 21:38, 30 September 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!} 06:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ruiz II

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to have gained notability since previous deletion. — Moriwen (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Arizona. — Moriwen (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the page merits retention due to several key factors demonstrating Ruiz's significance and notability.

Comparable Wikipedia Entries: Many individuals who have held comparable or similar positions as Chief of Staff, including Allie Bones and Jack LaSota, maintain active Wikipedia pages.

Both of these individuals have pages with far less detail regarding their accomplishments or their impact on public policy. This sets a clear precedent for retaining the page for Ruiz, who has had an equally, if not more, significant role in Arizona's political landscape.

Historical and Cultural Significance: Daniel Ruiz II holds the distinction of being the first Latino to serve as Chief of Staff to an Arizona Governor. This alone represents a noteworthy milestone in Arizona’s political history, reflecting the increasing diversity in state leadership roles and making Ruiz a pioneering figure in the Latino community. His tenure in this high-profile position is emblematic of broader societal changes and deserves recognition for its historic value.

Impact and Influence: As noted on the page and in news sources, during his tenure, Ruiz oversaw critical initiatives under Governor Doug Ducey’s administration, playing a central role in shaping policy decisions and managing key aspects of state governance. His influence extended beyond the day-to-day operations of the Governor's office, as Chief of Staff is a role vital to executing state policy and managing crisis responses. His leadership, particularly in a state as politically dynamic as Arizona, underscores the importance of documenting his contributions.

Broader Media Recognition: As noted in the specific citations from reliable sources provided, Daniel Ruiz II has been the subject of media coverage related to his role in shaping Arizona's policies. His involvement in major state initiatives, including economic development and crisis management, has brought him into the public eye.

Daniel Ruiz II is a notable figure both historically and politically. His role as the first Latino Chief of Staff in Arizona and his comparability with other individuals in similar roles who have retained Wikipedia pages underscore his notability. I respectfully request that his page be maintained and preserved as an important documentation of Arizona’s political history. ArizonaArt (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think people are going to be convinced by ChatGPT. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: First hispanic chief of staff is barely notable, the Blue Cross position isn't notable. I don't see what's changed in the three months since last AfD. Sourcing used is simply confirmation of various positions, no different than any other person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing has substantially changed since the AfD from five months ago. The other CEOs cited by the AI Keep vote means Wikipedia:Other things exist. Additionally, one of the figures cited was also the Arizona Attorney General, a statewide office meeting WP:NPOL, so that is not a good example. The article also masks a lack of notability through a number of tactics. His job history has a number of vague phrasings such as "accepted a position," "took a leadership position," and "helped plan," which can cover a whole bunch of meaningful or meaningless tasks. It makes the article wordier by giving extraneous background on people such as his grandfather and his predecessors. Finally, as I post with every AfD an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mpen320. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:54, 30 September 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 23:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Acres

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

Deletion as per no wp:rs, unclear notability via reliable sources, page appears to be promotional for real estate listing Nayyn (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. All four of the current cites are primary. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:38, 6 October 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. asilvering (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Anne Asher

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

Page appears to fail WP:N, WP:SPORTSPERSON, WP:BIO for equestrians, not notable, few RS on this individual to warrant encyclopedic entry, listing existence could be seen as promotional for this person's business. The events that are described in this person's bio: FEI North American Continental Championships in 2014, 2015 and 2017,silver medal during the Championships in 2017 and won all U25 classes --are not the highest level of international competition and many individuals could have listings here. Maybe this competitor will become an international level performer but is not currently. Nayyn (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article meet WP:BIO as quoted from the page "A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"Tesleemah 08:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What of these wins is considered "a significant honor"? None of these are at international level.

Re:The concept of significant honour is not clearly stated, they Afterall won a national award and some Olympics.Tesleemah 08:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They did not go to the Olympics Nayyn (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these wins is considered "a significant honor"? None of these are at international level." + "Maybe this competitor will become an international level performer but is not currently." is both incorrect. The FEI North American Championships is a significant international championship in equestrian sport and being on the podium is a high recognition as young talent in dressage. Also the U25 division this athlete competed, is an international recognized class and winning in Wellington is a significant prestige in equestrian sport.

Above comments added by Rytter192 on 17:10, 5 October 2024

Delete since subject fails WP:NPERSON and clearly does not meet WP:SPORTSPERSON. Wikipedia is not a directory of athletes. Tellingly, in WP:SPORTSPERSON the key word in the sentence "A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor" is significant. -The Gnome (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of meeting SPORTCRIT, which is required for this athlete. JoelleJay (talk) 00:05, 7 October 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 Ahiara. Redirect preferred as WP:ATD. asilvering (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ogbe

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

I couldn't find sources to establish that this meets WP:NPLACE/WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject lack references to establish their notability Tesleemah (talk) 08:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ahiara, the city of which it is a ward or district. Bearian (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNo references to establish any sort of notability 79lives (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No sources in the article and none could be found. I would be supportive of the suggestion to redirect.
Redirect : I support Bearian on this as I can find about two reliable source talking about an event that happened in the village area such as [1] and [2]. Which means the village exit.--Gabriel (……?) 16:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ahiara. Wikipedia is not a directory of the world's villages. Four hamlets, by the internet deities! -The Gnome (talk) 20:17, 6 October 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!} 23:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tran Kim Chung

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. UPE. No indication of significance. Refs are passing, press-releases, paid PR and puff pieces. scope_creep^Talk 19:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Vietnam. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much of the information isn’t about him at all, but the company of which he is a manager. There is totally lacking significant coverage about him. Bearian (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian I've updated the references for him. Let me know if any changes are needed. Thanks.1.53.12.190 (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a brand new IP editor who appeared yesterday and may be former editor Nguyenkimgs who was sock blocked yesterday. scope_creep^Talk 09:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page is still about the company, not the man. I haven’t changed, and won’t change, my mind for that reason. Bearian (talk) 02:42, 4 October 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boutxy

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

I tried to PROD this, but it was removed, so I figure this is the next best place. I see no notability, though some sources do exist. The bear is just another poaching victim, which is unfortunate, but should really be included in a different article, perhaps one about the decline of brown bears in the Pyrenees. The references that are used all redirect to the article for some reason, as well. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Kingsmasher678: This article is translated from the French Wikipedia where the references are working: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boutxy @Insillaciv: have you checked out Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia yet? It's allowed and encouraged to translate from the other language Wikipedias. The Creative Commons license requires attribution; it's often done with an edit summary when starting a translation. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The references are really more of a nitpick than anything, my issue comes from the notability side of things. I would argue that the sources I can access, which is only the news articles for some reason, even in the french article, simply don't show a reason for this article.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the French sources don't show notability, then delete. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - much as I dislike the draft system, this is potentially a valid article IMO if the references can be fixed (the reports for example are available elsewhere on the internet even though the fr-Wiki links do indeed seem to be broken), which I'm willing to attempt but don't have time to do at this exact moment. I don't agree in any case that there is no notability here, largely because the number of these bears is tiny (about 14-15 of them), and each one is named, known and followed, so individual bears often have an unusually high profile. Anyway, please draftify and I'll see if I can work it up - nothing lost if I can't. Ingratis (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC) In co-operation with the creator Insillaciv, obvs, if he/she/they is still around - not intending to cut them out.Ingratis (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Is this a hoax? The sources don't link to anything. I don't see mentions of a bear with this name online. Why does a bear get an article, I'm not even sure what the notability is supposed to be. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So this was a bear that was eating sheep [3], [4], but I'm not really seeing notability... Oaktree b (talk) 00:14, 1 October 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 delete‎ per author request. ✗plicit 11:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denys Myrgorodskyi

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. UPE advert. Gas man No indication of significance. Refs are press-release, profiles, passing mentions, and x of y articles. scope_creep^Talk 21:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Law, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 29 September 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 List of active natural gas power stations in the United Kingdom with a possible rename of the target. There is clear consensus against keeping this as a standalone article, and the proposed merge ATD received support. If the merge isn't carried out in two months, any editor is welcome to BLAR the page to that target. Owen× ☎ 23:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of active coal-fired power stations in the United Kingdom

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

There are no longer any active coal-fired power stations in the UK - good news for the environment, but that means this list is no longer required. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 23:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A rare case where the deletion of an article is understood, proper, and relieving; no ATD to be found, so it should be quietly wound down. Nate • (chatter) 23:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Lists, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of decommissioned coal-fired power stations in the United Kingdom. Right before this nomination, a list of recently closed plants was removed from this page [5]. Since those are blue links, I think this is would be a relevant subarticle of Lists of power stations in the United Kingdom that should be kept for historical coverage, similar to List of decommissioned coal-fired power stations in the United States. Reywas92^Talk 02:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you suggest already exists. See List of power stations in England, for example. Sort the table by "Type" and every coal fire station that operated in England is listed together with the years that it was operations. Similar list exists for the other UK countries. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)*:I think this is a good idea, but I think it might be better to call it just 'List of coal-fired power stations in the United Kingdom', since putting 'decommissioned' just seems a bit redundant when there won't be an 'active' page anymore.ThisCatLikesCrypto (talk) 06:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given that there was only one in there and now there are none. If we had a list of former coal fired power stations it would be huge and would attract lots of unsourced content - the last thing we need is a list cruft magnet. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no active coal-fired power stations, and this is an empty list. Arguably able to be speedy-deleted under WP:C1 unless I'm misunderstanding that. As @Mark999 suggested on the talk page, an alternate page Coal phase-out in the United Kingdom would be nice to have, documenting the process of decommissioning. Couruu (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C1 only applies to categories which is why I've brought it to AfD DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 14:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename and rework per Reywas92. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: With the last plant closing, there is quite literally no use for this list. It's like the exact opposite of WP:TOOSOON. Sir MemeGod  16:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This list is no longer useful since there are no longer any active plants in the UK. The content can be merged with something else - maybe Lists of power stations in the United Kingdom, but as a standalone article this list is unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesiMoore (talk DesiMoore (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC) • contribs) 16:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It already exists at List of power stations in England, for example. Sort the table by "Type" and every coal fire station that operated in England is listed together with the years that it was operations. Similar list exists for the other UK countries. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no strong view on whether the page should be deleted, but if it is then I suggest moving some of the content to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_in_Britain#Gas_and_coal --2A0A:EF40:1398:F301:7225:5CA5:F9EF:2859 (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page as it stands makes no sense at all. It's an empty list plus some information about the phase out of coal. The phase out of coal information can go in it's own page and the decommisioned stations can be referenced in the list of powerstations in in england page. I Hate Banner adds (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I started this page to document the phase out and i agree this makes no sense as there are 0 coal stations left operating, however there is useful information and referencing within the article which could be re-used for an article on the phase out since 2015 when station began to close at a fast rate. Also information on the final operating stations in the UK would be historic and useful information within such an article I agree the article should be deleted as it stands but i think the information should be transferred to another article on the phase out.User:Bs0u10e01 (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I suggest merging into List of active natural gas power stations in the United Kingdom and renaming the article accordingly to document/chronicle the closure of fossil fuel power stations, adding in the few remaining oil-fired plants. The section for coal would set out the journey and notable milestones whilst the oil/natural gas sections being 'works in progress'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:4380:3D01:18FA:2C06:1284:1F37 (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of active natural gas power stations in the United Kingdom and rename. Article could be linked with or merged with Oil terminals in the United Kingdom for a list article that demonstrates the state of fossil fuels in the country. --Cmrc23 (talk) 05:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Cmrc23 and the IP editor immediately above them. Documenting the phase out of fossil-fuel power generation in the United Kingdom is absolutely encyclopaedic and this title will remain a plausible search term for a long while to come as not everyone will know/remember that there are no longer any coal-fired stations operating. Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 5 October 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 Art and History Museums - Maitland per StarMississippi's, CFA's and Asilvering's suggestion since that is the current museum system. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maitland Telephone Museum

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

Fails WP:NORG. Couldn't find any significant coverage. I suggest a redirect to Maitland Historical Museum. C F A 💬 21:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Technology, and Florida. C F A 💬 21:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge together with the historical museum referenced in the nom to Art and History Museums - Maitland (red link will be fixed shortly). Neither has standalone notability per sourcing I've found and can be amply covered in the soon to be target article. Star Mississippi 21:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now exists. I think it meets N:ORG regardless of how this closes, but it makes sense as a target. Star Mississippi 22:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a separate article; cover in the article for Maitland, Florida. In the Google search, the museum is listed as an attraction in some of the most unexpected places - a bunch of real estate listings, an appliance repair company, and this flower shop. Unfortunately, the flower shop has a link to this Wikipedia article, so a REDIRECT will be needed. At most I found a single paragraph about the museum; the rest were mentions in a list of attractions. Lamona (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is in a lot of tourism directory listings (both in print and online) but unfortunately not much beyond that.Myotus (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability. If editors want to add it to the other Art and History Museums page afterwards they can do that separately.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we have one Redirect suggestion and a different Merge suggestion plus editors arguing for Deletion so I don't see a consensus. Would any of the editors arguing for Delete consider an ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Maitland Historical Museum per above.--User:Namiba 16:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Maitland Historical Museum per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this now. Star Mississippi created Art and History Museums - Maitland (thank you), so this should be redirected to there as it is not notable on its own. Nothing to merge, and Maitland Historical Museum should also be redirected separately. C F A 💬 01:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Art and History Museums - Maitland. This is the clear best outcome now, as this article has been created. No need for a merge, as there is nothing to merge. -- asilvering (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Owen× ☎ 22:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional detectives for younger readers

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NLIST, there's no reason to split List of fictional detectives into a list specifically for "younger readers". Di (they-them) (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Fictional elements, Literature, and Lists. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No valid reason for a spin-out and no indication that this fictional concept is notable. A redirect would not be viable as any of the other target lists include many subjects outside of the "younger readers" section and lack a dedicated subsection for them, which would be detrimental to reader navigation. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This seems like WP:OR and the sources don't indicate a split is needed. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:38, 3 October 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 largest stars. Owen× ☎ 22:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EV Carinae

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

Fails WP:NASTRO, no detailed coverage about this star, not visible to the naked eye and not discovered before 1850. Just a large star like many others. 21 Andromedae (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. 21 Andromedae (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did not remember making this article, huh. Quite a goofy one too if you ask me. If I have forgotten about it, maybe it's not that important. But same reasons apply, no significant or non-trivial coverage, not visible to the naked eye, etc.

SkyFlubbler (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of largest stars where it is listed. It does show up in several studies of M supergiants, but there's not enough substantial content to make it a keep. Praemonitus (talk) 05:04, 2 October 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. Owen× ☎ 21:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Bailey (broadcaster)

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

“ He is best known for being friends with Collette Howe, who is famous for knowing Wagner off the X Factor” is a pretty unusual claim of notability, but that’s apparently his most important claim to fame. The subject is a successful broadcaster who has done the typical things that a radio presenter does. I don’t see how any of this makes him notable. Mccapra (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject is not notable. Notability cannot be transfer between friends. He has done his broadcasting job pretty well and kudos to him.Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and England. Mccapra (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Wagner reference looks like vandalism[6], I've undone it. Orange sticker (talk) 11:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:CREATIVE is the closest Wikipedia guideline for this field, and I can't see how this individual has met any of the criteria listed. He has had a reasonably successful career in regional radio presentation, but I don't see that this means he has made a significant contribution to advancing the field of radio, he's just done typical radio presenter things, moved around various presentation and production jobs, won some awards, taken part in a few radio stunts, it's not a notable contribution under the guideline. The only thing I can see that might swing it is an Audio & Radio Industry Awards gold win in 2024 (this being a significant award in the radio field), but I think there needs to be more before there's an article. Flip Format (talk) 16:28, 30 September 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. Owen× ☎ 21:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nasamike

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG; random program manager among a multitude who had similar positions at NASA flight centers. Yes, was mentioned in a random NSF newsletter page, but that doesn't make one notable. ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed TheHalalanator (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no enough secondary, reliable and independent sources to establish the subject's notability. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Spaceflight. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 07:12, 5 October 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 Miss Earth 2022. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 21:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeen Ayoub

AfDs for this article:

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

Redirect to Miss Earth 2022. Subject fails WP:GNG and is only known for the Miss Earth 2022 pageant so WP:BLP1E would apply. I did WP:BEFORE on Google, Archive.org, and Newspapers.com but wasn't able to find anything new of substance that wasn't mentioned in the previous AfD. There were a handful of new articles from 2023 but they were just passing mentions that she was in Miss Earth 2022. There are some other sources but I didn't think they were reliable and were mostly the same material from her Miss Earth 2022 appearance. Last AfD ended in a redirect and I think that's appropriate here as well. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: It is a pure case of WP:BLP1E. I did a background check and I could not find any notable thing after before or after Miss Earth 2022. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 29 September 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 Jade (R&B group). Owen× ☎ 21:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tonya Kelly

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

Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO, I did WP:BEFORE on Google, Archive.org, and Newspapers.com but wasn't able to find anything that would make them notable other then the musical group they were apart of. There are two sources in the article now one from R&B Haven that is about the band Jade that she was apart of and another from the Houston Chronicle about how she wasn't a part of a tour with Jade. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No enough reliable and independent sources to establish notability. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jade (R&B group), of which she as a member. There’s only two sources, one of which is about the band, and one about herself. Bearian (talk) 23:50, 2 October 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. Owen× ☎ 21:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akrokre Festival

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

I can't find any mention of this festival. "Akrokre" appears to be an isiXhosa word meaning something like "suspect" or "suspicious"; the word appears in this travelogue, but in a context unrelated to any festival. I was unable to find any other mentions of the word, let alone the festival. Suriname0 (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The festival actually exists, I just watched a Facebook video on it. However, the festival lack the sources that can make it notable on the Wikipedia, Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Africa, and Ghana. Suriname0 (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 29 September 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 Draftify‎. Consensus to move to draftspace till further improvements. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Myles

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

Non-notable high school athlete. Citations are two non-independent sources, a database entry, and a BBC article that doesn't mention him. — Moriwen (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Wales. — Moriwen (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is a professional that has played for Norwich City's first team and has been on the subs bench in over half of the leagoe fixtures (4of7) this season, hardly high school. BBC article names him on the lineups tab. I will add additional citations. Soccerway stats are very common on wiki for illustrating appearances. Canary757 (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Norwich Evening News article is half-decent but not enough to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Stats databases like Soccerway are fine for statistics but don't contribute to "significant coverage". Robby.is.on (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft This is not the best start for an article and not the best for main space, @Canary757: I strongly suggest you read through WP:DRAFT. Regards. Govvy (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – Per Govvy. Svartner (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added two new references, but there seems to be a consensus growing. Is it possible to return it to drafts rather than delete it entirely/ Canary757 (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also wiki articles such as Donnell McNeilly and Harrison Murray-Campbell and others of the Chelsea development squad for instance. Are these non-notable too or are they simply presented better?. I appreciate your feedback. Canary757 (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is essential to find sources that bring WP:SIGCOV to the player, not just matchmaking databases. Svartner (talk) 07:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for the advice Svartner. I changed the database references in the main article. Canary757 (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 19:23, 1 October 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. ^Complex/_Rational 15:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Faulkner (physicist)

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

Associate professor with an h-factor of 33 and no major awards. Page was created in 2014 when he was an assistant professor -- in 2024 that would (should) not be done of course. The page was tagged for academic notability in 2020, and no improvements have been made and he seems to have slipped through the cracks. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot find any relevant recent improvements, deletion seems proper. TheHalalanator (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not pass WP:NPROF. Citations not enough for C1 and associate professor is of course not enough for C5. Sgubaldo (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. In this area of physics, authors are mostly alphabetical so we can't conclude much from author ordering. And although it is a high-citation field, I think numerically his citation counts look ok. I think if there were literally anything else that I could point to as contributing to notability, it might be enough to push me into a weak keep, but I didn't find anything. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He’s doing interesting work, but I have no opinion about his notability. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon in high cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:18, 5 October 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 2024 Chicago White Sox season. A few emphatic, possibly canvassed, calls to keep the page due to it being "historic", but those relying on P&G overwhelmingly sided against having this as a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 21:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Chicago White Sox's 121st loss

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

Declined PROD. Fails WP:NSPORTSEVENT. One of the record 121 (so far) losses, nothing about the record-breaking loss itself has lasting notability. The game itself was routine and WP:ROTM. Many comments such as "represented a crucial point" in the rivalry and the announcer calls are WP:FANCRUFT. What needs to be covered of the 121-loss (or more) season can be covered at 2024 Chicago White Sox season – Muboshgu (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, what we have here is one of the most historical baseball games of the 21st century, the breaking of a record only surpassed by the 1899 Cleveland Spiders (you should have seen them play!). When this game went into the record books it literally went into the record books. The 2024 White Sox season is historic for, yes, its 121 losses. This was the 121st, and that's what makes it notable and, despite the contents of two essays while actually meeting the only policy mentioned in the nom ("A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved"), well deserving of a stand-alone article.. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
one of the most historical baseball games of the 21st century Hardly. This isn't going to be analyzed in the future like, say, Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game. It was one loss out of 121 (or 122). History never analyzed the 1962 Mets' record breaking loss (whatever number that was), just the 1962 New York Mets season as a whole, as they will with the 2024 White Sox. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:NSPORTSEVENT guideline also mentions that
... news coverage should be extensive (e.g., outside of the week of its occurrence ...
—Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, so how are we supposed to know one way or the other when this event hasn't even had the requisite time to accumulate such coverage? That's why the "wait" !votes presented by myself and Esolo5002 seem the most sensible. What's the big rush? Any assertion of notability or lack thereof is mere speculation at this point. Left guide (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep A historic loss that officially clinched the White Sox as the worst team in MLB history. In addition, the Tigers also ended their ten year playoff drought with this win following a historic resurgence not seen since the 1973 Mets, so between the two events, there is plenty of coverage. This game will be talked about for a long time. 69.118.230.235 (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just because a record is set doesn't make the game noteworthy. The game itself is a nothingburger, and the bulk of the article is cruft. The "Aftermath" section, mere days after the event, is ridiculous, and includes an entire passage about the Tigers clinching a playoff berth, with zero mention of the White Sox at all. The event can be summarized in a single paragraph at 2024 Chicago White Sox season. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The game itself is not notable... the article spends as much time talking about the Tigers clinching a playoff spot as it does the White Sox setting a record. There was no article on the Cleveland Spiders setting the previous record. Nothing about the game was "historical". The White Sox set a season record for losses, not a game record.. making the season itself notable for that and the 2024 Chicago White Sox season article is the place for information about this record. Spanneraol (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The game was internationally covered by major news sources. Anything but mundane. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every MLB game is covered by major news sources. Even spring training games. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Internationally? Ah, no. This one was. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every game that Shohei Ohtani plays gets more international coverage than this game did. Spanneraol (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (oppose merge/redirect) per WP:NOPAGE. A game receiving a bit more coverage than a normal late-season baseball game does not mean it needs its own article. This game can be summarized in a few sentences at 2024 Chicago White Sox season. I oppose a redirect due to this particular title being an unlikely search term. The fact that this game also ended the Tigers’ nine-year postseason drought is not relevant. There have been postseason droughts of significantly longer duration across the four major American sports, and those clinching games do not have articles, or receive any WP:LASTING coverage (likewise the specific game in which the 1962 Mets set the record did not receive lasting coverage). Frank Anchor 14:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the game itself isn't what's important. The game as a part of a larger whole, the season, is what's important. And that already has an article. All discussion of this game should be merged into that article as that is the important and notable topic. --Torsodog^Talk 15:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: records are broken every single year but we don't have articles for every game in which one happens to be broken. It would be ridiculous to have an article for Aaron Judge's 62nd home run, or Oakland Athletics' 20th consecutive win; those records are the result of season-long play and one particular game out of 162 isn't somehow notable because the record was broken on that night. I cannot articulate strongly enough how much this article is not needed and how the content should be merged to the season article instead. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't believe we have a similar page named "1962 New York Mets' 120th loss". GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, from what I'm seeing so far there's almost no chance this survives as an article, so let's merge this into the main season article so the history is preserved. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 19:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Only one rebutted my point about the Tigers. And to Frank, while it’s not a historic drought, it is abnormal for this timeframe, plus, as I said, the comeback on the Tigers season is historic.69.118.230.235 (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Tigers’ nine year drought is not abnormal for this time frame, considering the Angels have an active drought now at ten years, and the Mariners recently ended a drought of over twenty years. Frank Anchor 03:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have articles for every game where a team clinched a playoff berth. The Tigers also have a season article. Spanneraol (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is (supposedly) about the White Sox' record loss, not the Tigers' playoff clinch. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing noteworthy about the game itself. Rift (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note, even though the number of editors asking for deletion grows by the hour, the article meets GNG and WP:NSPORTSEVENT, and now all that can be done is wait for a few weeks to see if the game is still notable and discussed. As an update, the White Sox won their last two games to finish at 41-121, so the 121st game is the record holder for maybe the next 62 years (unless the Sox beat it in 2025). Another notability of the game is that the Sox lost this 121st in their 160th game of the season, the number of games played by the 1962 New York Mets, who lost 120, thus setting the modern day single-season loss record in the same amount of games played by the former record-holding team. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You stand in the minority in saying that it meets notability, as the majority have detailed why this ROTM loss does not meet GNG or NSPORTSEVENT. That the White Sox won their last two games has no bearing on this discussion one way or the other. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That it was the last loss of the record-breaking season should count in favor of keeping the page. It's early yet, so awhile to go for other editors to catch onto its notability and to read WP:NSPORTSEVENT to ascertain if this game meets its exception standards. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This game has no meaning without the other 120 losses that preceded it. That's why it's not notable. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the White Sox had lost a 122nd, it would have had no bearing on this AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean wait. The long-term notability of this "record" is suspect. But in the near term, there has been lots of coverage. Per WP:RAPID, let's wait until this story is a little less fresh. Then we can really assess whether there is secondary sources to support this article. That being said, I'm not entirely oppossed to a merge to 2024 Chicago White Sox season, that at least preserves the history of this page. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree with a redirect and merge, even if it turns out that it's not worthy of keeping the page history is nice to have and redirects are harmless! Especially if there's more commentary on this next year and future years. I created a redirect of the Double doink football play never expecting it to become anything but when another double doink happened it was suddenly notable enough to expand to an article! Though the article didn't use my capitalization, someone started a better one with Doink not doink. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 04:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: This event occurred a mere three days ago so it's impossible to determine whether there will be enough secondary coverage, because right now there is none; it's all essentially primary sources. As per WP:PRIMARY:
For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources.
This AfD is best being relisted a few times, so we can wait and see if there's WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE over the next few weeks (which the event hasn't even had a chance to accumulate yet), and make a better judgment call then. Left guide (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could not disagree more. In the unlikely event SIGCOV specifically related to this game comes out in the next several weeks, then the article can be refunded. Historically, SIGCOV for single games either comes out almost immediately or not at all. Frank Anchor 10:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or redirect to 2024 Chicago White Sox season. Cbl62 (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Partial Merge to 2024 Chicago White Sox season. This game is no more notable than any of the White Sox other losses in 2024, but it may be worth some extra attention within the 2024 season article. Rlendog (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Chicago White Sox season. I would say the game is only notable as part of the season as a whole, not as an individual game. Rhino131 (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge into 2024 Chicago White Sox season. Agreeing with above, there should absolutely be a section dedicated to this game on the 2024 White Sox season, and this page should become a redirect to there. There is an important distinction to be made about this article compared to others like Longest professional baseball game, and that is this game is not notable, the event is. Nothing about the game is special other than the fact it was a loss. If this wasn't the 121st loss, and was instead the 80th, what's so special about it? The context provided by the rest of the 2024 season article is what makes the game notable. This game should be documented, but it does not deserve its own article. Chewsterchew (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. This game and its outcome are more than notable enough for the article to stand on its own two feet. I cannot for the life of me understand where the controversy is. 23:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
68.49.126.217 (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The events in the game are not notable at all.. only the season total is notable. Spanneraol (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing remotely remarkable about this game itself. It wasn't a dramatic nailbiter. It wasn't the height of competitive baseball. It was preceded by 120 other losses. THAT is the only reason anyone is talking about it. All content about this belongs in the season article, full stop. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I covered my thoughts in my original message, the game is not notable, the season leading up to it is. The outcome is notable, but not notable enough to warrant its own article. Chewsterchew (talk) 00:17, 3 October 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. Giving more weight to arguments engaging in critical source assessment, and less weight to those engaging in WP:VAGUEWAVE, consensus is that sourcing does not meet NCORP. Owen× ☎ 12:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua Security

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

Does not meet WP:NORG: the article is entirely a list of acquisitions and funding rounds, referenced to trivial coverage ("inclusion in lists of similar organizations" and "of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business"). No significant coverage. Dan • ✉ 22:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article really is littered with funding rounds. No coverage exclusively to the company in sources. Niashervin (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company is a notable player in the cybersecurity industry, particularly in cloud-native security. Aqua Security has significant media coverage from reputable sources like Bloomberg, TechCrunch, and The Wall Street Journal --Loewstisch (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The citations to Bloomberg are directory information. They do not indicate a WP:CORP that is distinguishable from all other cyber security firms worldwide. Being a financially successful corporation does not a notable one maketh. Ventric (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I totally agree about Bloomberg, as it is just a directory. Loewstisch (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As to the other references you mentioned - the Techcrunch articles are regurgitated PR on funding rounds with no "Independent Content" as required by ORGIND. The WSJ articles - one has a quote from a company exec, no in-depth information about the company as required by CORPDEPTH, the other is another rehash of a funding announcement, fails ORGIND. None meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability.

Keep as the company is well-covered in specific business and security literature (per my additional WP before search), such as books on DevOps, Kubernetes, containerized applications, and cloud security. The page and its sources are also about software. Some security-industry guidebooks also heavily analyze various Aqua software tools, including Trivy and Kube-hunter. --美しい歌 (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit simply added three book titles to a new section, and did not connect these references to the prose or explain their relevance. Of the three, Rice (2020) is partially written by company representatives and is not a reliable source: "this work is part of a collaboration between O'Reilly and Aqua Security" (p. ii), Binnie & McCune (2021) is unavailable on Google Books so I can't confirm a reference to the article subject, and Aversa (2023) simply makes passing references for how to use Aqua Security products, but does not demonstrate any notability whatsoever. Dan • ✉ 12:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was not solely referring to those books, as there are many more. I agree that Rice (2020) is not an independent source. However, Cloud Native Security devotes a significant portion to the software, while Aversa's book covers the software side of Aqua Security in depth, including descriptions of various software structures, acquisitions, and principles. 美しい歌 (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Cloud Native Security" book says nothing about the company and the only mentions of the company are in relation to installing some of the software. We require in-depth information about the *company*. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the majority of coverage is comprised of trivial mentions. If it were kept, it would require a sharp reduction in content because it reads as WP:ADS - it is largely self-promo content. However, the lack of specific coverage and the inclusion in "who-to-watch" lists and whatnot does not comprise notability. CapnPhantasm (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources are mainly about routine investment rounds, but not all of them. Some Hebrew sources, as well as a few U.S. ones, offer sufficient and independent coverage. The company passes ORG notability threshold ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 11:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources specifically? Also, the *content* has to be in-depth and Independent, it isn't just the fact that the publisher is independent of the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reliable coverage in many sources - both books, Israel tech media and industry focused news sites. --Mind-blowing blow (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example? The only non-trivial reference in the article appears to be that of the The New Stack article; the rest of the references are completely trivial funding drivel. A Google News search likewise finds no relevant reliable sources. Dan • ✉ 00:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting NCORP. All deletes claim that the article is imperfect: this is true however AFDISNOTCLEANUP. So weak arguments for deletion. gidonb (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/move to draft space, the article was almost certainly created by the company itself and is almost entirely based on poor quality sources. I've removed the most egregious claims/sources and what remains is "a list of acquisitions and funding rounds" as stated by the nominator. While a stub article could probably be created from reliable sources, it does not seem fair to allow a "$1 billion dollar" company's marketing department to create work for volunteers. The article should be created via the WP:AFC process instead of allowing a COI article to be created directly in mainspace without repercussions. Brandon (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP Youknow? (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP,WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. Its looks and reads like UPE advert article and still has an acquisitions list like its 2008 and consists of funding news and hosting requirements. I can go through the references, the first block if need be. scope_creep^Talk 18:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Insillaciv (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Review of references yields many tech blogs and VC funding reports, and no significant, independent, reliable secondary sources. Jtwhetten (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'll spare everyone the meta-commentary so as to avoid sounding like a paranoiac but the sources available is truly the trivial-ist of WP:ORGTRIV it is possible to get. By design, a pain to get through. Got up to page 10, nothing that contributes to NCORP in the slightest. Binnie and McCune (2021) does briefly mention Aqua in the context of how to use some software, but there is insufficient content about the software for it to contribute to the notability of even the software. Aversa (2023) is published by BPB Publishing which is a predatory publisher, so unless someone gives me a good reason, I am inclined to decline to review it beyond that. Best, Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An Israeli unicorn with multiple reliable sources and a minimum but significant level of coverage in reputable independent media. In addition, the topic of the discussion is also a set of various software apps that have also received significant media attention even in the industry focused papers and books.

Hib Al Gibol (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see the sources in Hebrew, some books, and at least Calcalistech have required deep coverage with analysis, brief overivew, etc that allows for anyone to "to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization" - as WP:ORGDEPTH says --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 10:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calcalistech is similar to Techcrunch. It almost the same format and its junk. scope_creep^Talk 09:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets have a look at the first block of references:

Ref 1 [7] Inteview with founder. Fails WP:ORGIND.

Ref 2 [8] Paid for profile.

Ref 3 [9] Paid for profile

Ref 4 [10] An X of Y article. This is a paid-for profile and is not independent. Fails WP:SIRS.

Ref 5 [11] Funding news. Fails WP:CORPTRIV

Ref 6 [12] Funding news. Fails WP:CORPTRIV

Ref 7 [13] This is PR profile with interview material. It fails WP:SIRS. Its not independent.

Ref 8 [14] Another list of unicorns. A profile. Fails WP:SIRS

Ref 9 [15] This is the passing mention. Context is wrong. Fails WP:SIRS.

Ref 10 [16] Passing mention. Context is wrong. Fails WP:SIRS.

Ref 11 [17] This details Aquas own security report. Its a WP:SPS source.

Ref 12 [18] Discusses the report above.

So in the first 12 reference not a single reference passed either WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPTRIV. All the information like most startups comes from Aqua itelf. It is a complete failure of WP:NCORP. Its another UPE advertisement. scope_creep^Talk 09:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I meant to provide an analysis of sourcing earlier. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll relist this for a few more days to allow editors arguing to Keep this article to rebut the source review which identifies the existing sources as inadequate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep according to WP:SUBSTANTIAL, partly WP:PRODUCT and WP:CORPDEPTH. I found this discussion very interesting and would like to clarify and help the "pro-life aka keep" voters with a clear example of substantial media coverage. Let's start with WP:PRODUCT. I applied the WP Product while reviewing the book Cloud Native Security, which was mentioned twice in this discussion. I found that Aqua Security’s product, kube-hunter, received significant and in-depth coverage in the book. It wasn't mentioned briefly in any way, but it was thoroughly examined as one of the key tools for auditing and securing Kubernetes environments. The coverage overpassed the book passage requirement (WP Substantial) for the coverage be significant and not trivial. According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, when a company is known for a series of products, it's best to cover both the company and its products in one consolidated article. Aqua Security's tools, such as kube-hunter and kube-bench, are crucial to its operations and have been recognized by independent, reliable sources, making them notable enough to be included in the same article as the company. Given the deep coverage at least in a source like Cloud Native Security, the page may be notable. For these reasons, I think the article should be restructured to avoid redundant and promotional corporate achievements and mention some of its software. Second, let's come back to WP:SUBSTANTIAL and its second bullet point: A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization. I spent some time and also reviewed the coverage of Aqua Security in multiple TechCrunch articles, which provide often trivial but often substantial and ongoing media attention that clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements for an organization. For example, Aqua Security has been the highlighted for its large market presence and role in the industry with small but overall good analyses and feedback made by the authors of the Techcrunch. I mean, there were not only mentions of funding rounds, but much more. For example, the 2021 article discusses Aqua’s transition from a product-based company to a platform that secures the entire cloud-native environment, with notable achievements in container and Kubernetes security. Similarly, earlier articles from 2019 also focus on Aqua's innovative approach to container security, explaining its role in securing Fortune 500 customers' critical cloud environments. Third point I've read The Marker media - one of the top in Israel and not tech-only. The article provides detailed analysis of Aqua Security’s unique position in the cloud-native security market, focusing on its specialized approach to securing applications during runtime, which makes it different from competitors like Wiz and Orca. The reporter highlights how Aqua Security’s agent-based solution provides deeper protection than agentless systems. This deep coverage in the article also shows that Aqua’s technology is recognized as being more comprehensive but with a more complex integration process. Additionally, The Marker analyzes the growing overlapping among key players of the cybersecurity industry, where Aqua Security is moving towards offering broader, more integrated solutions by acquiring startups like Argon. The article also analyzes how Aqua Security acts in a competitive Israel market. The media is positioning Aqua as a leader in cloud-native security while providing detailed not trivial and interesting comparisons with new competitors such as Apwind, Sweet Security, and others. So we see here no routine or promotion, but clear deep "homemade" (in-house) significant coverage. Here is the article: [19]. My last point. There is another substantial coverage of Aqua Security in The Marker, which explores how the company strategically acquires competitors to become a bigger player, bite a bigger market share and reduce competition. The article also hints that such activities are not very good and may harm the thriving and competitive ecosystem of security startups, and and so on. Link [20]. 46.120.127.13 (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. WP:PRODUCT does not apply here as this article is about the company. See the note above by HighKing: We require in-depth information about the *company*.
2. None of the articles in TechCrunch satisfy WP:SUBSTANTIAL as you claim. Please compare to WP:ORGTRIV's example: standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: … of a capital transaction, such as raised capital, … All three of the articles are entirely about receiving investment funding:
  - "Aqua Security raises $135M at a $1B valuation for its cloud native security platform"
  - "Container security startup Aqua lands $62M Series C"
  - "Cloud-native cybersecurity startup Aqua Security raises $60M and remains a unicorn"
3. The first article you cite in The Marker is also about funding, at least according to Google Translate's rendering of the headline: Hebrew: אקווה סקיוריטי גייסה 60 מיליון דולר בשווי של לפני שלוש שנים, lit. 'Aqua Security raised $60 million in value three years ago'
4. The second article in The Marker fails a different WP:ORGTRIV example of trivial coverage: … of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business, … Hebrew: לפני חצי שנה ארגון השיקה מוצר – כעת היא נמכרת ליוניקורן הסייבר אקווה בעשרות מיליוני דולרים, lit. 'Six months ago an organization launched a product - now it is sold to the cyber unicorn Aqua for tens of millions of dollars'
Dan • ✉ 20:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I need to disagree with you and choose the side of the other user who expressed their views above and found those articles. I’ve read it in Hebrew and must admit it really meets the requirements for SIGCOV. I also believe it's important to look beyond the titles and brief summaries of these articles. It's true that many articles begin with catchy headlines about funding or acquisitions, but that's just standard practice for media. The real value lies in the depth of analysis within the text itself.

For instance, The Marker articles do not simply report on Aqua Security’s funding; they provide detailed insight into Aqua’s strategic role in the cloud-native security market and how its technology sets it apart from competitors. One article goes into a thorough discussion of Aqua's unique approach to securing applications during runtime, contrasting it with agentless solutions like those from Wiz and Orca. This isn't just routine coverage—it’s an exploration of the technological depth and market position that Aqua has carved out. The piece also discusses the challenges and advantages of Aqua’s agent-based solution, offering a more complex and comprehensive take than simple mentions of funding rounds.

As for TechCrunch, it’s a tricky question but the rule about “ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization” should be used here. I will add additional in a separete comment. ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NCORP has specific guidance on assessing independence and SIGCOV (particularly ORGTRIV), and the sources provided here do not meet these parameters. Brief coverage of product announcements, funding rounds, acquisitions, etc. is not SIGCOV, content purely derived from what the company says about itself is not independent, and coverage of a product is not inherited by the company. JoelleJay (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New significant sources added I was inspired by the latest updated within the discussion and found out that aside from this newly found reliable significant coverage source by the Marker [21] there are some better sources and ground for raising the page’s notability.

Here is another significant piece of coverage on the topic: https://www.ice.co.il/finance/news/article/836868. The Ice.co.il sou provides substantial coverage of Aqua Security by analyzing the impact of its acquisition of Argon. The article share the details of the Argon’s technology and explains how it protects the software supply chain from "code manipulation and malicious insertions." It also make an overview of the context and notes the role in the cybersecurity landscape for Aqua Security and explain the readers how this purchase heps the organizatin to become "the only provider capable of offering full protection for development processes" in cloud environments. Furthermore, it highlights industry challenges, such as increasing cyber threats, and references recent high-profile breaches like SolarWinds.

Another reliable source from The Marker:

https://www.themarker.com/technation/2021-03-10/ty-article/.premium/0000017f-e5eb-d62c-a1ff-fdfbb0b00000

I have an access to it and see that the article provides significant coverage of Aqua Security, stopping in detail at key developments such as its latest funding round, business growth, who invested and why invested (it shed some light that CEO Davidoff worked with one of the investors in the previous round on other projects) and the history of the company. It also explains how the company move from the container security niche to the broader solutions on the global scale.

I have also rewritten the page and made it equally about the software and the company. That is why the company has a large amount of notable software that is the subject of significant reviews/guides in the industry books during the last 3-5 years.

Here are some books I researched thanks to WP BEFORE and share how they contribute to the software/company's notability:

In the book Mastering Cloud Native by Aditya Pratap Bhuyan, Aqua Security receives significant coverage, particularly highlighting its Aqua Platform, which offers comprehensive end-to-end security for cloud-native environments. The book has explanations of key features such as image scanning, runtime protection, and compliance enforcement, demonstrating software’s major role in securing containerized applications and more.
In Security for Containers and Kubernetes by Luigi Aversa, Aqua Security's open-source tool Trivy receives significant, in-depth coverage across several chapters, demonstrating its importance in container security. The book highlights Trivy's functionalities like vulnerability detection, SBOM support, and many other boring technical but not passing-mention stuff. Given the thorough, independent analysis in this book, Aqua Security's software meets Wikipedia's notability requirements for significant coverage.
In the book Kubernetes - A Complete DevOps Cookbook, an entire chapter is dedicated to a how-to guide on integrating Aqua Security's Trivy tool into CI/CD pipelines for container security. This section provides detailed, step-by-step instructions for using Trivy with platforms such as CircleCI and GitLab. The guide was written by authors independent of Aqua Security, which corresponds with substantial coverage under Wikipedia’s notability guidelines (namely this part:: an extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product (e.g. For Dummies).

So, to sum up, there have been found and added to the page at least 3 reliable sources with non-trivial and in-depth coverage of the company, while we also have a multiple books covering the software and the page now is a combination of the company and a product. ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

Dor, Ofir (2024-01-03). אקווה סקיוריטי גייסה 60 מיליון דולר בשווי של לפני שלוש שנים [Aqua Security raised $60 million in value three years ago]. The Marker (in Hebrew).
This is standard WP:CORPTRIV of a corporate funding round.
Cohen, Nitzan (2021-02-12). אקווה סקיוריטי רוכשת חברה ישראלית שתגן על מפתחי תוכנה [Aqua Security acquires an Israeli company that will protect software developers]. Finance. ICE (in Hebrew).
This is standard WP:CORPTRIV of a corporate acquisition. Your comment that it an overview of the context and notes the role in the cybersecurity landscape for Aqua Security and explain the readers how this purchase heps the organizatin describes the standard boilerplate corporate speak found in these types of articles, and is not actually a notable journalistic description of the company.
Zahrovich, Omri (2021-03-10). אקווה סקיוריטי הופכת לחד קרן: 'יש 'הייפ' בענף, אבל לנו יש ביצועים חזקים' [Aqua Security becomes a unicorn: 'There is 'hype' in the industry, but we have strong performance']. The Marker (in Hebrew).
This is standard WP:CORPTRIV of inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists.
Bhuyan, Aditya Pratap (2024). Mastering Cloud Native: A Comprehensive Guide to Containers, DevOps, CI/CD, and Microservices. ISBN 979-833423401-7.
This is a self-published book for its author to advertise his consulting business.
Aversa, Luigi (2023). Security for Containers and Kubernetes. Delhi: BPB Publications. ISBN 978-93-55518-439. OCLC 1382693746.
I already noted above that this book simply makes passing references for how to use Aqua Security products. Further, Alpha3031 identified above that is published by BPB Publishing which is a predatory publisher.
Karslioglu, Murat (2020). Kubernetes - A Complete DevOps Cookbook: Build and Manage Your Applications, Orchestrate Containers, and Deploy Cloud-Native Services. Birmingham: Packt. ISBN 978-1-83882-804-2. OCLC 1190651785. OL 27083721W.
The use of Trivy is explained in pp. 475–481; however, it is a gross exaggeration to claim that an entire chapter is dedicated to a how-to guide on integrating Aqua Security's Trivy tool as the containing chapter (chapter 9) makes no mention of it or of Aqua Security the company outside this six-page subsection. As noted by HighKing, we require in-depth information about the *company* which a brief explanation of how to deploy one of its products does not qualify for.

None of these above qualify as independent, reliable, secondary sources. Dan • ✉ 15:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lots of canvanssing going on here. I had a look at the books as well. The Aditya Pratap Bhuyan book is self-published. Its a junk ref. The Luigi Aversa is essentially a manual and Aqua is mentioned, but its passing mention. Its more on how to implement Trivy and not specific to the company. The Marker is like Tech Crunch, as detailed at a previous Afd. There is nothing here in this company that makes it particular notable. scope_creep^Talk 16:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's rich! The Marker is a financial daily owned by Haaretz, Israel's newspaper of record. Nothing like Tech Crunch! gidonb (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting and analyzing the reliable sources

This source from TheMarker [22] is not WP:CORPTRIV but a classic WP:SUBSTANTIAL and meet NCROP criteria. Here is my analysis:

According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations and companies, significant coverage must be:

Reliable: Published by trustworthy sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
Secondary: Produced by sources independent of the subject.
Independent: Not affiliated with the subject; free from conflicts of interest.
In-depth: Goes beyond trivial mentions or routine announcements; provides substantial information and analysis.

Reliability of the Source: TheMarker is a well-respected Israeli business publication known for its credible journalism and in-depth reporting. The article is written by Ofir Dor, a journalist, indicating professional authorship. Conclusion: The source is reliable.

Independence and Secondary Nature: The article is independent of Aqua Security; there is no indication of it being sponsored content or a press release. It provides analysis and reporting separate from any company influence. Conclusion: The article is an independent, secondary source.

Depth of Coverage: the article talks/coverages on Market Position (Discusses Aqua's maintained valuation amidst industry challenges), Company Background (provides history since its founding in 2015, total investments, and key personnel); ::Industry Analysis (explores the competitiveness across the industry, mentioning specific competitors and how Aqua's approach differs. It analyzes industry trends, such as the convergence of cybersecurity solutions and the debate over agent-based versus agentless security tools); Technical Evaluation (discusses the technical aspects of Aqua's solutions. Includes perspectives on the effectiveness of their approach compared to competitors. The article addresses both the business and technical dimensions of Aqua Security, offering a broad overview “that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements).

Avoidance of Trivial or Routine Coverage: not Routine, while it mentions the funding event, the article expands significantly on other aspects.

Conclusion. The coverage is significant and non-trivial because the focus is on analyzing the company's position, strategies, and industry impact rather than merely announcing routine stuff.

Second source for analysis [23]. I will be brief here. The article, instead of trivial routine mentioning of the purchase of Argon competitor, explores in-depth how the acquisition of the startup helps Aqua Security's position in cloud-native security “by enhancing their protection across the software development lifecycle, especially focusing on software supply chain security”. It also provides us with a discussion on Argon's agentless solutions and the integration into Aqua’s platform that may strengthen Aqua’s capability in securing apps "from code to runtime," which may be a good leverage among the competitors. The article further mentions the context of cyberattacks, referencing infamous incidents like the SolarWinds and Codecov attacks and discussing how Aqua’s integration of Argon’s technology will influence this. This industry-wide analysis adds significance and in-depth coverage that goes beyond a routine announcement of the acquisition.
Third source [24] the article goes beyond routine corporate announcements by…. analyzing the company's growth trajectory, financial details, and competitive positioning within the cloud-native security market. Additionally, it highlights Aqua Security's evolution, telling the readers how it progressed from a container-based security company to another industry: cloud-native security platforms. The coverage also has details about the company's revenue growth, clients, and how it fits among the global industry giants like CheckPoint and Palo Alto Networks. All that is filled with some kind of irony about the market hype around cloud-native security and the journalist kind of questions if it’s enough for Aqua, even along with tis good financial performance, to be distinguished from competitors and survive.

So, to sum up, this is pretty decent depth of coverage, providing financial specifics, industry comparisons, and market positioning. It definitely is reliable, secondary and deep enough. I also need to highlight what is the TheMarker media, as for many it may sound like some junk. So, TheMarker is a leading financial and business news outlet in Israel. It has a long-standing reputation for its thorough journalism and reliable reporting. Founded in 1999, it is part of the prestigious Haaretz group, one of Israel's oldest and most respected media organizations (founded in 1918). TheMarker is well-known for its investigative journalism, independence of view, deep and critical economic and business analysis. ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ג'ימיהחיה. As I understand it "לפי הודעת אקווה" translates to "According to Aqua's announcement". Is this incorrect? Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the news includes also the company's announcement, which I disregarded and did not include in my analysis, as well as any comments from any parties—whether from the startups that were acquired or from industry competitors. ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is not including all the parts where it says "according to the company" and "the company claims" ("באקווה לפחות טוענים"), etc in the only parts that aren't about the funding round how you arrived at the conclusion there was no indication of any company influence? Because I'm not sure what parts you think are left once you get rid of that and the top three paragraphs, which are the fact that they raised money, how much they raised, and the fact that they announced they raised money. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add that the "definition" used above Independent: Not affiliated with the subject; free from conflicts of interest addresses only half of the definition, and probably the reason why some editors are struggling with wrapping their heads around what "Independent Source" means. See WP:ORGIND which not only comments on the "not affiliated" at a corporate level, but also addresses the *content" such that the article text must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. As Alpha3031 correctly says above, once you remove the obvious regurgitated company information, where is the *in-depth* original/independent opinion/analysis/fact checking/investigation/etc? There's nothing in any of those articles. There is no "Independent Content" - all of the information is regurgitated from company sources. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 September 29 and to get it back on the logs. This may be closed by an admin whenever they deem it ready
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. I see a great deal of special pleading and talking up of incidental coverage, padded out with a mass of company material. Basically there's hardly anything of substance in the sourcing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article reads as if it was written by a corporate technical writer. It is free of any obvious marketing language, but is entirely written from the viewpoint of the company. Corporate notability is based on significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This article describes what the company has done, but nothing in this article is about third-party sources have written about the company. This article does not speak for itself and does not state what independent reliable sources have said about the company. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After reviewing the sources, they're all WP:ORGTRIV or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS; there's insufficient WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS to pass WP:NCORP. To answer a few points made above, The Marker's coverage is classic ORGTRIV (valuations, capital investments, etc.), and The New Stack source, while substantial, includes a little note in small type at the bottom: "TNS owner Insight Partners is an investor in: Docker, Aqua Security", which would raise questions about The New Stack's independence as a source on this company. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As an Israeli tech nerd, never heard of it. It is definitely not notable locally, and considering the bad sources (as pointed out above many times) and lack of any real content in the page itself, it isn't notable in a niche either. RatherQueerDebator (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sourcing isn't up to par and I can't identify a logical merge or redirect target.—S Marshall T/C 23:14, 30 September 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nima Lashkari

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

Assistant professor who does not come close to meeting WP:NPROF, one of two created recently directly to main space by an editor with only a few edits. Not enough publications, no major awards. Article was draftified on WP:NPP with notability tags, but tag was removed and it was immediately moved back to main space with the claim "meets Wikipedia standards". I think an easy case of Delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think age or institutional title should decide the eligibility for a Wikipedia page. Consult for example the Wikipedia page for Thomas Faulkner (physicist) who has had a Wikipedia page since 2014 when he joined UIUC as an assistant professor. Considering this example there is no reason to delete the page for Nima Lashkari. This is not a clear "easy case of Delete". Shoy.ouseph (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the guide in WP:NPROF. There is a broad community consensus on the criteria for notability of an academic. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing to other articles is not generally a very good way to tell whether an article should be deleted or not. Sometimes, those other articles only exist because nobody has noticed them and bothered to put them up for deletion yet. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. XOR'easter (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iran, Canada, California, Indiana, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On a promising career track but the field he is in is very high-citation, so his citation record, strong as it is, is not enough to convince for WP:PROF#C1 and there seems to be nothing else. No prejudice against returning to this after five or ten years when the dust should have settled enough for us to judge this better. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPROF, they could be notable down the road but as of now they are not. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:20, 29 September 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. Evidence re: PROF#C2 has not been refuted. Owen× ☎ 21:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Almheiri

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

Assistant professor who does not come close to meeting WP:NPROF, one of two created recently directly to main space by an editor with only a few edits. Not enough publications, no major awards. Article was draftified on WP:NPP and tagged for notability, but tag was removed and it was immediately moved back to main space with the claim "meets Wikipedia standards". I think an easy case of Delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He has made a good start, and the joint awarding (with three others) of the Breakthrough prize in 2021 is a plus; please note that this was awarded to three groups that year, a total of nine people. I am sure that if his career continues to move forward he will qualify under WP:NPROF in a few years, but currently it is WP:TOOSOON. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Almheiri has received the New Horizons Breakthrough Prize in Physics and the Pride of Emirates medal which are quite notable achievements. He also has an individual paper with more than 1500 citations and has contributed significantly to his field just in the last decade. Age and institutional title should not be the measuring stick for eligibility of having a wikipedia page. Consider for example the Wikipedia page of Netta Engelhardt who received the Breakthrough Prize alongside Ahmed Almheiri. This shows that the article deserves to live in Wikipedia and in no way is an "easy case of Delete". Shoy.ouseph (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada, California, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Breakthrough Prize is very high-profile, I think enough for WP:PROF#C2. It's hard to judge his citation record for #C1 because this is a high-citation field but he does have high citations as well. Assistant professors are generally not notable unless we have evidence that they are already recognized as a star in their field (not just a promising new researcher) but I think the Breakthrough Prize is that recognition that we're looking for. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bluelinked prize (Breakthrough) and we can presume notability right there. Other than that, he just about squeaks WP:GNG on media coverage alone. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:26, 30 September 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. ✗plicit 13:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tomoki Hidaka

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

Playing 24 games in the Japanese second league 14 years ago is a weak claim to notability. The sources are not enough to rectify that, and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:22, 1 October 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. ✗plicit 13:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheng Peng

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

Playing 391 minutes in the Chinese first league, 90 minutes in the second league and some matches in the third league is a weak claim to notability. The sources are not enough to rectify that, and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:22, 1 October 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 13:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sébastien Socié

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

Socié was a perennial reserve who barely played, if he played at all, on somewhat higher levels of football. None of the sources constitute significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ScottishFootballObseasive: The article doesn't show anything of interest or even passable WP:GNG, unless you can greatly improve it and provide good sources for this time at Lyon-La Duchère and that he actually played then that might help. However I don't even see sources for that online, so this harsh from me, but you need to greatly improve the article, because this is just a delete. Govvy (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:22, 1 October 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!} 23:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Europe of Sovereign Nations (party)

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

The relevant article already exists Europe of Sovereign Nations Group. The existence of a second article is abusive, all the more so if it offers the reader nothing different or new in terms of information. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 18:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Europe. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ legally distinct entities: see ECR party & group; EPP party & group Braganza (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the essential difference between the two? Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 19:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

one is a european party, the other is a group

FvD is member of the party but not the group Braganza (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just like at the national level, European parties are extra-parliamentary entities, while political groups are entities that operate only within the confines of the (European) Parliament. Membership is different, leadership is different, rules are different, roles are different, names and logos are (often) different, etc. Julius Schwarz (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Indeed, seems like a clear case of confusing European political party and political group of the European Parliament. Should have read the disambiguation page Europe of Sovereign Nations. Julius Schwarz (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, it is a separate entity and has one different member.--Jay942942 (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, a party and a European parliamentary group are different, there is also seperate articles for the ECR group and the ECR party, I can understand the arguments to delete this page since the ESN is small but we should be consitent on it --LuanLoud (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia, I'm curious about your deletion nomination. How can the presence of a related article on Wikipedia be considered "abusive"? Abusive to who? It's just after looking at thousands of AFD discussions, it's an argument I've never come across before and I'd like to know what you meant. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I picked the wrong word. I meant excessive (too much)- two articles on the same subject. Sorry if I confused you. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 17:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the same subject though. ElTres (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Do those !voting "oppose" perhaps mean "keep"? See WP:DISCUSSAFD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, oppose the proposed deletion. Julius Schwarz (talk) 08:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Europe of Sovereign Nations Group. This is not identical to the sovereign nations group, but as long as the party remains aspirational, and the article simply instead lists constitutent members that are parties that form the group, the reader would be better served by having this all in one place. Should this become an actual party it is almost certain that reliable sources would cover it as such and at that point it would merit its own article. We are not there yet. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Parties do not form a group, MEPs form a group. ElTres (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This the best solution ! Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 16:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely not the best solution. These are two distinct legal entities, with different members, different leaders, and different roles. There is no reason to merge these two articles. Even if the Europe of Sovereign Nations (party) did not register as a European political party, it would deserve its own page as a political alliance, of which there are many -- as it would still be distinct from the Europe of Sovereign Nations Group. Julius Schwarz (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are not two legal entities at this time. Even if there were, the different legal entities are not the reason for having an article page. Both entities would need to be independently notable. At this stage the party is not independently notable. If and when it becomes a reality, and when secondary sources then discuss it, that would be when there should be a page. Until then, it is detail that should be on the group page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is objectively false: there are indeed two separate legal entities. The Europe of Sovereign Nations (party) is not yet endowed with European legal personality, but it is indeed registered as an association in Germany and exists as such. And, although notability is more subjective, the two entities are indeed independently notable, as they do not have the same members and roles. Julius Schwarz (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page is about a party (that does not exist) and not about a precursor association. But again, what we need are secondary sources discussing the party. We don't have any, so this does not meet WP:GNG. When it actually becomes a party, that is likely to change. But to date we have nothing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to change "party" to "alliance" or "political alliance" in the title of the page. However, there seems to be a rather strong consensus against deleting this page. Julius Schwarz (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The party does exist. Proof can be found in Handelsregister Berlin under registration number VR 41308. It just has not yet been registered as European Political Party by the APPF. I agree that secondary sources were missing from the article and have added some. ElTres (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Handelsregister Berlin" is a primary source, so not suitable for WP. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 17:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For an opinion, no, but for fact? How is a register not a good source for the fact that something is registered? Julius Schwarz (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Europe of Sovereign Nations (party) is now a registered European political party. Additional third-party sources were added following the registration. Julius Schwarz (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my analysis of the 3 new sources you added. They do not change my view. Per WP:SUSTAINED, we see that Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Articles saying what the AfD intends to do are not sufficient to write an article about a party that does not exist yet. The information is not irrelevant but a reader is poorly served in having to locate and read an article about a party that has not yet come into existence when this information would be better placed on the page about the group and the page about the AfD.

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:Sirfurboy**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Tagesschau - AfD will Europäische Partei gründen (AfD wants to found a European party) [25]	Tagesschau is a German national news programme/service hosted by a public service broadcaster. Independent and reliable.		The article discusses their plans, and why they are in a hurry to do this - to access funding - but it confirms no such party exists. This information is current for the Alternative fur Deutschland page, but it cannot tell us about this party as an entity, because it doesn't exist yet. This does not significantly describe the party. It does not tell us what the party is. It cannot even tell us the party will definitely come into being. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability and so an article about something that does not exist should not exist. There are existing articles where this information should be discussed.	✘ No
RedaktionsNetzwerk Deutschland - AfD plant Gründung von neuer europäischer Partei (AfD plans to establish new European party) [26]	RDN is the news network for Madsack Media Group which has political control but is independent from the AfD		The same issue as above. The article is about plans, and the desire to access funding. It confirms that the party does not exist yet.	✘ No
ThePostOnline (NL) FVD sluit zich aan bij Europe of Sovereign Nations (FVD joins Europe of Sovereign Nations) [27]	TPO is a Dutch news website. Privately owned but independent.	? They aspire to be like Fox news or CNN and rely heavily on comment. I am not sure if they are considered reliable or not.	The article is about the FVD (Forum voor Democratie) joining the ESB. All we have is Forum voor Democratie (FVD) heeft zich, ondanks afwezigheid in het Europees Parlement, aangesloten bij de nieuwe rechtse politieke beweging Europe of Sovereign Nations. Deze beweging is opgericht door de Duitse partij Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), die eerder werd uitgesloten van de fractie Identiteit en Democratie. That is Forum for Democracy (FVD) has joined the new right-wing political movement Europe of Sovereign Nations, despite its absence in the European Parliament. This movement was founded by the German party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), which was previously excluded from the Identity and Democracy group. That is not significant coverage from which an article can be written.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nom. has nominated deletion, so per nom. would be delete yes? Those stating oppose above probably mean keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i think he means norm like in "normal" Braganza (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Also, arguments like "oppose per nom" makes no sense because if you oppose this article's deletion, then how can you agree with the nominator that it should be deleted? It would be helpful if participants used the standard words, Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect or Draftify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a legally distinct entity with separate membership and structural organization. If we have Volt, European Communist Action, &c, we should keep this This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What secondary sources cover it? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no reason to delete Braganza (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Braganza: would you mind striking the bolded 'oppose' from your previous !vote, so that you don't accidentally get counted twice? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

alright Braganza (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The more my research on the party progresses, the more I am convinced that it should be deleted. And it's obvious since the article is primarily based on primary sources and has a problem of original research as I have already pointed out with the relevant tag. Meanwhile, those in favour of keeping make no effort to substantiate the notability of the article on the basis of Wikipedia's policy. Probably because they can't. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 16:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has already been pointed out that it is a separate entity from the correspondent EP group, with its own separate leadership and membership. It has already been pointed out that the party has been officially registered as party, and is therefore a legal entity on its own (and not just the idea of a project). It has already been pointed out that the existence of pages for EP groups and European parties bearing the same names and containing potentially overlapping information is a standard in the specific context of European politics. Deleting the page for merely procedural reasons would be a mistake to me.--Fm3dici97 (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are two different organizations: a European political party and a European parliamentary group. I see absolutely no point in deleting the party page. I see the problems that this page has, but even they are not a reason for deleting. It's like deleting an article about the European People's Party, merging it into the EPP group (or vice versa). PLATEL (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But there is not a political party as it hasn't yet been registered as a political party. Registration is pending. But even if we take the pre-registered association as something, there remain no reliable secondary sources covering this. If the party were registered, we might presume notability, but until that happens, it is entirely possible that registration would be withdrawn and it would never be notable. If there were reliable secondary sources significantly covering the party, then it would pass GNG. At this stage neither is true. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no European political party at this point, as registration is pending, but there is a political alliance, as has already been pointed out several times. Sure, there may need to be further sources, but this shortcoming does not seem to warrant (in the eyes of almost all contributors here) the proposed merger. Julius Schwarz (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point...no one cares about the lack of sources. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 16:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Keep, see EPP/EPP Group, ECR Party/ECR Group. I'll grant the article needs improvement, but deletion is out of the question. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 08:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The fact that the party exists and that it is a separate legal entity from the group are not, by themselves, a valid argument to keep an article on Wikipedia. The question here is whether the party meets our notability guidelines for a standalone article, or whether the sourced material is better off being merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A clearer consensus? Seems pretty clear to me when reading the page.. Julius Schwarz (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What sources do we have that discuss the party and provide us information from which an article about this part can be written? We need significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, per WP:GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have struck my merge vote above. The registration of the party has succeeded. If it had failed, then this would never have been notable. Now it has succeeded I expect we are WP:TOOSOON in that we do not yet have any sources that meet GNG, but a merge is no longer appropriate as there is now a party which differs from the group. It is too soon, and there isn't sourcing, but a presumption of notabilty would now fall in favour of sources being forthcoming in the future. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:35, 2 October 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources – no article! I'm happy to change my mind if someone shows significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, which issue has gotten remarkably little attention during this AfD. From a quick skim of the sources in the article, I can only see one (the Euronews one) that actually meets the criteria. Some of the English-language ones also seem to be conflating party and parliamentary group. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:38, 4 October 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. ✗plicit 13:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet potato haupia pie

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

Appears to be a non-notable dish. Sources are all recipes and blogs. The sprouted garden source is about the sweet potato, not the pie. The book is just a single sentence+recipe. The U Hawaii is a recipe. Google search only found recipes (and very few of those). Recipes for Haupia pie -- some referring to it as a Hawaiian classic, which is at least a claim to notability and may be a possible place to move instead of delete -- came up more often, but that was usually pies of just haupia or haupia with chocolate or other flavors. I see this was converted to a redirect to Sweet potato pie once, but reverted. I think it could possibly be redirected to Haupia. Valereee (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Hawaii. Valereee (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More reliable sources added LittleT889 (talk) 07:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Mahalo to LittleT889 for improving the article with better sources, as it certainly needed it. A quick search in Newspapers.com yielded this 1998 Honolulu Advertiser article with recipe, "Sweet potato pie with that unique Island touch" which says, "Several readers have written and called asking for a recipe for sweet potato haupia pie made with Okinawan or purple sweet potatoes. This is a delicious pie available at Nori's in Hilo and Yama's Fish Market in Honolulu. But neither would share their recipes.". It's a contemporary Hawaiian-Okinawan classic that has been trendy over the last ~25 years, as evidenced by its mention, year after year, in Frommer's travel guide; chefs and dessert makers feel compelled to put their own spin on it with subtle variations; a recipe was included in Hawaii's Best Local Desserts (reprinted here); and the article as it stands now cites many other articles and recipes. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:10, 5 October 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. ✗plicit 13:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Ulehla

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

I cannot find any evidence of notability for this Slovak men's ice hockey player to meet the whole WP:GNG. He only played less than 100 matches in the highest league. Excluding passing mentions, I only found an interview on Czech newspaper Deník in terms of reliable secondary sources. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Would have fallen well short even under the former WP:NHOCKEY standards. --NHL04 (talk) 10:25, 5 October 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. ✗plicit 11:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Running Man (Taiwanese TV series)

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

No assertion of notability. Cabayi (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Taiwan. Cabayi (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: A quick search provided me with sources from Sing Tao Daily[28], Central News Agency[29], Liberty Times[30][31], ETtoday[32], Nownews[33][34], Mirror Media[35], Up Media [zh][36], etc., along with interviews with the director[37] and the lead cast[38][39], clearly fulfilling GNG and NTV. Besides, the series is produced by Videoland Television Network, a nationwide cable TV network in Taiwan, which also fulfills NTVNATL. No BEFORE was conducted before this nomination. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 12:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the sources identified by Prince of Erebor allow to verify this is notable enough. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Reliable coverage has been established here, albeit not on the article itself. These issues can be remedied by editors, so deletion is not the appropriate move. Yue🌙 22:02, 30 September 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 10:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How (video game)

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

Cites almost entirely primary sources, fails WP:GNG. This game isn't notable at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an IP editor removed the notability template with some anecdote in 2012. IgelRM (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find coverage in RS. Game was created solely to make a point. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:14, 29 September 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 10:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of the Java and .NET platforms

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

This article is currently a mess and reeks of original research and fancruft. Even if there could be enough sources to justify the notability of this comparison, with the current way this article is written I see no other way than to WP:TNT it. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Yes, both the Java, and the .NET platform are similar in many ways; likely they are two very common plaforms where Software development is done. In that respect, the 'recipes' of how certain things are done are very similar; tools may be slightly different. If you look at it at the level of Data Structures (or Abstract Data Tyes), there way to implement Lists, Queues or Sets is similar. I would nevertheless think that doing an in-depth comparison (which needs to be kept up to date, too) shouldn't be the focus of Wikipedia. It will not serve the average reader of wikipedia, and it will be of a very limited use to more tech-savy editors (as they have other sources for this kind of information). Eptalon (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unlikely the comparison could exceed a section in the C# article and this can be revisited if it does. Brandon (talk) 08:03, 30 September 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 10:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harold J. Dunlap

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

Cant see why he is notable. Note tag has been removed several times. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NACADEMIC. scope_creep^Talk 09:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Medicine, New York, and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a resume or CV, likely a memorial page. I don't see notability, he was involved in his community and professional field, but nothing we'd consider notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while he appears to have been an accomplished doctor within his community I'm not seeing a WP:GNG pass. He appears to have operated on several notable people, but that does not make the subject notable himself. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:16, 30 September 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 10:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Anula

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

Physical coaches are very rarely notable, and this coach has worked for relatively minor clubs on a European scale. There is no trace of independent and significant coverage in the sources, which are either primary sources, too reliant on quotes (which is also primary), too short to be significant or WP:ROUTINE transactional coverage, i.e. A went from B to C. Geschichte (talk) 08:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Geschichte nomination hit the nail on the head, this article shouldn't even be on wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Just a physical education professional working in clubs in Finland, with nothing to show notability for an article. Svartner (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:22, 1 October 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. ✗plicit 11:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Franck

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

This subject doesn’t pass WP:NPOL as he’s an unsuccessful candidate, and he doesn’t look like a GNG pass either. The sources are either self-published, an interview, or about the Volt party and its positions rather than in-depth independent coverage of the subject. Mccapra (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and France. Mccapra (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom - in effect the subject won a primary election. Bearian (talk) 00:36, 3 October 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. ✗plicit 11:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henrie Kwushue

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

Refs are profiles and interviews for this newb. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Very early career. UPE. scope_creep^Talk 08:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Music, Radio, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:TOOSOON, WP:UPE applies. Most of the coverage is in tabloid/gossip publications and such articles are not helpful. Interviews are definitely primary references while we need secondary references. Fails WP:GNG. 185.189.253.223 (talk) 11:25, 29 September 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. ✗plicit 11:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Jila'ow Adow

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

This bio stub is supported by a single source, but that source doesn’t substantiate the claims in the article. I was originally going to redirect this to National Security Service (Somalia) as this article claims he was the service director. However that article lists others as directors, not this subject. Possibly the article creator mixed two different people up, I don’t know. Anyway we are left with a biostub in which the claim to notability is not supported by the single source. Mccapra (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Somalia. Mccapra (talk) 08:05, 29 September 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 Taiwan–United States relations#Consular representation. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Guam

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

Non notable consulate. Mccapra (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Taiwan and Oceania. Mccapra (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Diplomatic representation on this level rarely meets WP:ORGCRIT, can't find anything to indicate this case is different. AusLondonder (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the sources are primary except 6 and 7. For this source, it's a small mention of the office so doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Taiwan–United States relations#Consular representation. —Kusma (talk) 10:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Taiwan–United States relations#Consular representation (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
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) 10:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no objection to a redirect as nominator. Mccapra (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no significant coverage that discusses the topic in detail. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 18:32, 3 October 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 11:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Than Singh Doli

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

This person does not qualify for a standalone Wikipedia page because he lost the election and he is not a member of the respective assembly. TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously, this fails WP:NPOL. How was this article not nominated at the time of creation? Candidacy does not inherently make someone notable. Also, thanks to TheSlumPanda for nominating it. GrabUp - Talk 08:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Posted a message to the NPP editor who marked this article as reviewed, which is the reason this article wasn’t taken to AfD. GrabUp - Talk 08:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, election spam. Geschichte (talk) 08:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim to notability, fails WP:NPOL. AusLondonder (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 21:17, 29 September 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. ✗plicit 11:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fazle Hasan Shishir

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

The article doesn't meet WP:NFILMMAKER. Producing non notable films doesn't justify notability, and that's the opposite to the page creator's stance. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Bangladesh. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Sources included seem to be a series of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS (or university newsletters), and the content is almost entirely promotional in nature. Meets criteria for an A7 or even G11 speedy delete. pluckyporo ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:33, 29 September 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. ✗plicit 14:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Democrats (Queensland Division) Incorporated

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

Minimal article on a state branch. The Australian Democrats were never significant in state level politics in Queensland and this article is little more than excess detail about the foundation of the branch, a list of federal Senators from the state and obscure points of Queensland company law. State & territory branches of Australian parties should only exist when the party was a significant force at that level. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources 8-12 merely confirm members. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 10:51, 5 October 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, without prejudice against restoration to draft for further development with clearly independent and non-PR sources. BD2412 T 01:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nima Asgari

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

Disputed draftification. I would have returned to draft, but WP:DRAFTIFY dictates that cannot happen, so here we are. Fails WP:NFILMMAKER. References are passing mentions that they have made such and such a film 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Iran. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Timtrent, Thank you for your review. I would like to highlight that Nima Asgari is a well-known documentary filmmaker in Iran, recognized for his significant contributions to environmental and wildlife documentaries. He has won several prestigious awards at international festivals, such as the Jackson Hole Wildlife Film Festival in the USA and the Green Screen Film Festival in Germany. Additionally, he has served as a jury member at events like the Matsalu Nature Film Festival in Estonia. I have updated the article with reliable sources and references that showcase his notable achievements and contributions to the field.

I hope this additional information helps in reconsidering the decision regarding the article. Siavakhsh (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Despite the statement above, the additional references aren't at all useful. This is not a review. Reviews are different. This is a discussion leading to potential deletion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source review (and more participation) would help come to a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, the sources are not WP:SIGCOV. As for WP:NFILMMAKER, I saw news coverage (but more WP:PRSOURCEs of some film festival category wins, but no reviews of his work in independent, reliable sources that would indicate a pass on WP:NBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 07:18, 29 September 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 06:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ajja Jhala

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

Yet another installment of a WP:WALLEDGARDEN on the Jhala family created by a now-blocked sockmaster. The core sources for these articles are books of purported genealogy published by Jhala family descendants. This article takes a legendary genealogy and launders the sources to present it as history:

Genealogy, Archive, Image: Interpreting Dynastic History in Western India is edited by two Jhala family members, including one who presents himself as the current head of the Jhala dynasty and heir of its legendary founder. It presents a fantastic story of Ajja Jhala leading an army into battle headless.
Ulian's Rajput is a self-published book that repeats and embellishes the same rather fantastic legends.
This book is self-published through vanity press Notion Press.
The article also cites two explicitly fictional works to support factual claims: The Flute and the Sword and The Hero of the Aravalis.

Meanwhile, the independent/reliable sources do not present any of this legendary material as fact or otherwise.

Bhardwaj's Hemu gives a brief mention to Ajja Jhala (p. 49 and the same anecdote repeated on p. 87).
Hooja's A History of Rajasthan gives a single mention to Ajja Jhala.

In short, what WP:SIGCOV we have on the Ajja Jhala includes legend repeated by WP:SPS and WP:COI sources, making it a failure on WP:V. The independent coverage, such as it is, does not establish facts about this figure as presented in the article and is not sufficient SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's thorough reasoning. APK hi :-) (talk) 06:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Mostly poor to unreliable sources and the somewhat reliable sources have entry to passing mention with no WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The authors are of course interested in propping up their fanaticized family history. WP is not the place for this kind of promo. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:50, 1 October 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 Withdrawn‎. Was not aware that this person was a member of Parliament, which does qualify as an "automatic keep". (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Money-Coutts, 8th Baron Latymer

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

Unclear notability. Are all British peers automatically notable? Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, United Kingdom, and England. Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Members of national legislatures are usually held to be automatically notable. He was a member of the House of Lords until 1999, even though he never spoke[40][41]. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, members of Parliament are considered notable per WP:POLITICIAN. A profile for him on the official Parliament website can be found here, where is shows him as a member of the House of Lords. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 15:24, 30 September 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renz Nathaniel Cruz

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

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

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

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

Unclear if there's enough here for WP:CREATIVE/GNG. Most of the sources have him name-checked as a member of the musical ensemble, but I'm not seeing any in-depth coverage. KH-1 (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Theatre, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person has barely done any professional work, let alone had a notable career. Strong delete. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he clearly isn't notable. Tavantius (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse spate of brand new editors seemingly canvassed to this discussion. Daniel (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsider deletion. An article from The Varsitarian provides significant coverage of Cruz's role in forming OperaJuan, an emerging youth opera and musical theater group, demonstrating leadership in his field. Cruz is quoted discussing the group's mission, showing he's considered an authority figure. The coverage provides substantive, independent information that establishes Cruz's notability in the field of Philippine music. I have expanded the article with this information. Ixo490 (talk) 03:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the publication of his alma mater. There's one sentence for background and two quotes. It's not really enough.-KH-1 (talk)

Retain. Did some research. Person is active performer. There is much evidence to this. Discography is also legitimate. Tracks are in all streaming platforms. Thompson.walkins (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notability has nothing to do with being an "active performer". You have to do be unusual to be notable, not WP:MILL. You need to stand out so that the media gives you WP:SIGCOV. For example, winning a Tony Award. Also, plenty of Philippine performers get a lot of WP:SIGCOV. See, for example, Lea Salonga or Morissette Amon. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can retain the article. Google recognizes the legitimacy of the artist. Ixo490 (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe there are compelling reasons to keep the article. As an emerging artist in the Philippine music and theater scene, his role in forming OperaJuan demonstrates leadership and initiative, highlighting his contributions to the local arts community. While he may not have extensive coverage yet, Wikipedia should be open to documenting rising talents, especially those making innovative strides in their fields. The presence of the artist's tracks on major streaming platforms and evidence of active performances suggest a legitimate, ongoing career in the arts, providing a solid foundation for the article that can be expanded as the artist's career progresses. Furthermore, as a young artist working in opera and musical theater in the Philippines, the artist may represent an important voice in the country's evolving performing arts scene, making it valuable to document his work for those researching contemporary Philippine culture and music. Retaining the article allows for future growth; it's not uncommon for articles on emerging artists to start small and develop over time. Additionally, including articles on up-and-coming artists from various countries enriches Wikipedia's content diversity, offering a more comprehensive view of global arts and culture. Given these points, I suggest keeping the article with appropriate sourcing and a neutral tone while monitoring for additional notable achievements or coverage that can further establish the artist's relevance. Editlife1tr (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV and the socks chiming in on this discussion aren't helping their cause. APK hi :-) (talk) 06:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse spate of brand new editors seemingly canvassed to this discussion. Daniel (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Editors are super obsessed with deleting articles of actual living professionals. Get a life. Keep the article. Loewemathers (talk) 06:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Googled the person and he is in fact a singer from the Philippines. Everything seems true and correct. I don't see any false or misleading information nor form of self-promotion. TOOLINK (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wonder how the people recommending deletion can verify the notability of any theater or opera artist from the Philippines when none of them are from the country. Not to mention, there's no existing database on Philippine theater and opera artists. This is a good contribution to the category. Thompson.walkins (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second this. These people are bored to death. This could help expand the list of local artists from Philippines. I don't see enough information on them. Ixo490 (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opera is a niche area of performing arts. Looks like their country doesn't have reliable information regarding this field. However, this online database of classical musicians recognizes him. TOOLINK (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from Thompson.walkins. DMacks (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ Make Wikipedia great again! Please stop deleting valuable, truthful information. Go and look for other pages to delete. There's real vandalism and then there are people hellbent on eliminating legitimate entries. TOOLINK (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Striking duplicate vote. You can only cast one bolded "vote". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To all of the new editors to Wikipedia, first "Welcome!" Secondly, Wikipedia determines whether or not an article should be Kept or Deleted not based on a vote count but based on whether or not notability can be established by reliable, independent secondary sources. They can't be "passing mentions" but provide SIGCOV (significant coverage). So, your pleas to save this article or accusations against other editors or Wikipedia won't have much impact but if you could find additional sources from mainstream new sources (not blogs or social media) could help establish notability and influence whether or not this article is Kept or not. Wikipedia is governed not by editors' opinions but by policies and guidelines and this is how we determine what articles should be Kept and which ones should be Deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse spate of brand new editors seemingly canvassed to this discussion. Daniel (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ Even A.I. recognizes the person. Hate to admit it, but I trust Artificial Intelligence more than these notorious editors. Loewemathers (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] What is that supposed to mean? Geschichte (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] Struck duplicate !vote from Loewemathers. DMacks (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Account creation dates: User:Ixo490: 5 hours ago, User:Thompson.walkins: 3 hours ago, User:Editlife1tr: 3 hours ago, User:Loewemathers: 2 hours ago, User:TOOLINK: 2 hours ago. Northern Moonlight 09:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an uninvolved administrator, I have taken actions (including page protection and collapsing seemingly-canvassed participation from brand new editors), to restore order and remove disruption from this debate. Daniel (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly seems like a talented artist who could merit an article at some point, but right now, the notability just isn't there. To anyone canvassed to come here: deletion isn't a punishment, it's just that Wikipedia's purpose is to recognize notability, not help create it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wish him well, but (agreeing with CoffeeCrumbs) WP:TOOSOON. Narky Blert (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - first, and most importantly, notability is not established. Secondly, the article was written by an obvious WP:SPA who created the article in their own sandbox two hours after opening their account. Thirdly, the number of other SPAs flooding this discussion with pwersonal attacks and assumptions of bad faith doesn't inspire confidence. If the article subject was truly notable there'd be no need for all that. It seems to me the subject or their friends or fans are involved in this. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 23:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with all the real voters above. Upon inspection, I think his OperaJuan operation might be closer to notability because they have received some media notice in their country. But since this article is about Mr. R.N. Cruz, he must achieve notability via reliable media coverage, and so far he's only in self-promotional mode. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per above and WP:TOOSOON. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:53, 4 October 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 06:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Fiji, Brussels

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

No inline sources. Basically a list of staff. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Belgium, and Fiji. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Almost all of embassies fails WP:GNG. Fiji–Belgium relation does not exist so delete is the option here Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article would be at Belgium–Fiji relations for alphabetical reasons, but yeah. Geschichte (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no secondary sourcing to support WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to note that LibStar has brought this article to AFD before under a slightly different name at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Fiji to Belgium which is why the PROD on this article was declined. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Liz. I actually can't remember this in 2009! The previous keep !votes were more like WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 06:43, 30 September 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 06:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Barker United SC

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

I can't find any WP:SIGCOV for this semi-pro Australian football team that isn't on the website of its football federation (footballsa.com.au) and thus independent. As a result, this is a WP:GNG / WP:NSPORT failure. (If you see coverage I may have missed, please ping me.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Australia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:21, 2 October 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 Jim Bridger#Media portrayals. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Tall Tales of Jim Bridger

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

I did a WP:BEFORE and found only one source of info, which is listed in the article, [42], and also an interview. The other sources in the article are either WP:PRIMARY, WP:ROUTINE press releases, an Instagram post, or IMDb. Therefore, it does not pass WP:GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Urbina, Rafael (2024-01-11). "How to Watch The Tall Tales of Jim Bridger: Stream Series Premiere Live, TV Channel". Sports Illustrated. Archived from the original on 2024-02-05. Retrieved 2024-09-24.
  The article provides 239 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The Tall Tales of Jim Bridger is set to make its series premiere on Thursday night on INSP, with the series showing tales from the Western frontier which were inspired by the adventures of the famed mountain man Jim Bridger. As Bridger guides a new wave of Americans heading west, he must help them survive the same life-and-death situations that made him a legend. The series started with the debut episode titled "The Prizefighter," and it tells the story of when Bridger's second-in-command begins enforcing camp discipline with brutal violence."
2. Leydon, Joe (2024-01-11). "C&I Q&A: Rib Hillis of The Tall Tales of Jim Bridger". Cowboys & Indians. Archived from the original on 2024-09-24. Retrieved 2024-09-24.
  The article provides 142 words of non-interview coverage about the subject. The article notes: "It’s a long way from the fashion capitals of Europe to the frontiers of Montana, but Rib Hillis has made the transition smoothly and authoritatively to play the title role in The Tall Tales of Jim Bridger, the new series premiering Thursday on INSP. ... With Tall Tales of Jim Bridger, the multitalented New York native gets his big chance to display his versatility by persuasively portraying the legendary 19th-century mountain man and frontiersman who explored the entire distant West and survived countless hair-raising adventures, and became an invaluable guide for settlers in search of new homes and lives for themselves. Of course, as the title indicates, the real Jim Bridger was known to, shall we say, exaggerate his resume. The series acknowledges his status as a not-always-reliable narrator, but shrewdly invokes dramatic license now and then to amp the entertainment value."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Tall Tales of Jim Bridger to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I disagree with this assessment, mainly that they are partial coverage and not significant. The first source is primarily a press release, while the second lacks the in-depth coverage. But we both find a different interpretation of that and I can accept that. Conyo14 (talk) 11:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: As a publisher, post-2019 Sports Illustrated (SI) is questionable for various reasons. I learned most of this from a recent discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/References (which you may find helpful), and a trip down the RSN archives is also very illuminating. If you can prove that the author of that piece is a real human with respected credentials and reputation in this topic area, then that might be sufficient for establishing reliability akin to how WP:EXPERTSPS works. Left guide (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. I didn't know that Sports Illustrated had published AI-generated articles. I am striking out this source as it was likely AI-generated as I cannot confirm that Rafael Urbina is a real person. The article is also no longer on the Sports Illustrated website. This CNN article says, "Sports Illustrated on Monday said it had deleted several articles from its website after a report found the once-celebrated legacy magazine had published the pieces under fake author names and profile images generated by artificial intelligence." With only one source remaining, the television series does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. The sources presented by Cunard are convincing and I agree with Cunard's assessment. Also, a redirect being warranted, I am opposed to deletion of this article. Thanks, Cunard.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Mushy Yank (talk · contribs). I've changed my recommendation after finding that one of the sources was likely AI-generated. Cunard (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Is that so? All right, I am a very artificial intelligence myself so this !vote will automatically strike itself out :D. Thanks for the ping. Yours, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement over whether found sources are sufficient to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I'm not entirely convinced the sources really represent significant independent coverage when the Sports Illustrated reads like an advertisement and the Cowboys & Indians piece is an interview with the actor. I do not think that a preamble introductory explanation of the subject really makes it independent of the interview, when the interview is the headline. That said, if the sources are deemed inadequate to keep the article, it could probably reduced to a section in Jim Bridger until/if more reliable sources are located--Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closer, I am also in favor of an WP:ATD as a redirect/merge. Conyo14 (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conyo14, do you agree with the proposed target article? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Conyo14 (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jim Bridger#Media portrayals (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
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) 08:36, 1 October 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. Disregarding all of the socks, there is a clear consensus to Delete this article. And, looking at this article, the subject is only 18 years old maybe he will become notable when his career is longer than a year or two. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seyed Ali Mousavi Nour

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

Fails notability, the whole article is about trying to sell his achievements as something important. never won a major senior medal. never even participated in a major event. his medal (if true) is just in youth level. Sports2021 (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No record of him competing at any adult tournament. Only success has come in youth categories, which has never been sufficient to show WP notability. Reports of team results do not constitute significant independent coverage. Fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or any SNG. I also see the AfD notification on the article's page keeps getting removed by IP addresses. Papaursa (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the sport of karate, unlike many other sports, there is no significant distinction between youth and adult competitions in terms of prestige and recognition. In fact, both youth and adult categories are considered to be on the same level, with no difference in the value and importance of their achievements. This is a point that is often not fully understood by those who lack expertise in karate. Many non-specialists and even some media outlets may assume that youth competitions are less significant than adult ones, whereas in reality, youth competitions in karate are held with the same level of difficulty and professionalism, and the medals earned in both categories hold equal prestige and value. This is especially true in major continental tournaments like the Asian Championships, which are organized under the authority of the World Karate Federation (WKF). The medals and achievements in these tournaments are recognized and recorded globally as significant accomplishments. These competitions are of the same caliber as adult events, and in many cases, athletes who win medals in the youth category quickly go on to achieve success on the international adult stage as well. This misunderstanding about the differences between age categories often leads to the undervaluation of athletes' achievements. However, from the perspective of experts and those deeply familiar with the structure of karate, it is clear that such successes, even in the youth categories, are by no means of lesser value compared to adult categories. This article, much like the article on Zohreh Barzegar, which highlights similar achievements in karate, should not be deleted. The value and significance of these accomplishments are comparable to those of other professional athletes whose articles remain on Wikipedia, and removing this article due to a lack of understanding of the sport’s structure would result in disregarding a legitimate and recognized achievement.InfoExplorer2023 (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— InfoExplorer2023 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete fails notability WP:ATHLETE. The article is a mess with links to official, medal, team, gold medal. The only claim to notability is a medal at the 2021 Asian Championship which is not sufficient to support notability by itself. Mostly routine event coverage and doesn't meet WP:GNG. Lekkha Moun (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In defense of keeping the article, several key points need to be considered. Firstly, karate is a martial art with its own complexities, which may not be easily understood by everyone. Unlike more popular sports like football, karate requires specialized knowledge and experience to properly assess an athlete's achievements. In this case, the article may seem brief, but that doesn’t mean it's not valuable; rather, it's currently a stub article. According to Wikipedia's stub guidelines, this article has the potential to be expanded over time by editors who are knowledgeable in karate.Regarding notability, it's important to reference WP:ATHLETE. According to this guideline, sporting achievements at the international level are inherently notable and warrant the creation of a standalone article. Winning a medal at the 2021 Asian Championship is just one example of this athlete’s success, and it is significant enough to demonstrate their notability. WP:ATHLETE explicitly mentions that success in reputable international competitions is a valid criterion for notability. Additionally, from the perspective of WP:GNG (General Notability Guideline), the article includes reliable and credible sources that provide sufficient coverage to verify the athlete’s notability. The sources cited in the article go beyond just the medal at the Asian Championship and provide a broader context of the athlete’s career and accomplishments, which can be expanded upon as the article grows. Lastly, the argument about WP:TOOSOON should not be used as a reason for deletion. This athlete is already recognized on an international level, and deleting the article due to perceived premature coverage would only hinder the development of more information about them. Wikipedia is a platform meant to collect and expand knowledge, and this article not only meets the notability guidelines but also represents an opportunity for further improvement by editors with expertise in karate. Given these points, deleting the article would not only be a mistake but would also contradict Wikipedia’s own policies. The article adheres to the notability guidelines and should remain so that it can be further developed, allowing the athlete’s achievements to be fully documented over time.BookLover070 (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— BookLover070 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
~~Keep~~ The issue of deleting certain sports articles, particularly regarding karate, requires careful and in-depth consideration. In this discipline, competitions and medals directly reflect the high level of skill and experience of the athletes. Karate, as a martial art, demands advanced techniques and high concentration, which can only be achieved through continuous practice and competition at the adult level.In karate, there is no separation between age categories, and all competitions are held in a professional and competitive manner. Winning a medal in Asian competitions, regardless of age, demonstrates the high abilities and skills of this athlete at an international level.Deleting these articles is not only incorrect but also unjustifiable from the perspective of the documentation and credibility of Wikipedia's sources. These articles can remain as reliable references in the field of karate and contribute to documenting the history and achievements of athletes.Therefore, based on my expertise in Wikipedia and the sport of karate, I firmly state that this article should be preserved to enhance the recognition of karate athletes' achievements and to document the history of this sport within Wikipedia.BookLover070 (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote, you can only cast one bolded vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject doesn't seem to meet notability per the above arguments. They also seem to be an actor of sorts from what my attempt to find sources showed me, though none of the roles they have been involved in seem to be major, either.--Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the request for deleting the article, there are several key points that need to be considered. Firstly, Google News, as a search and news distribution tool, does not always display reliable sources and may not cover all relevant sources due to various reasons, including algorithmic flaws. However, this issue should not be the primary criterion for deciding whether to keep or delete an article on Wikipedia.

This article is about an Iranian athlete who has achieved significant success in the field of karate. We must keep in mind that many Persian news outlets, due to their target audience and geographical focus, have covered this individual’s achievements more extensively than foreign news outlets. Therefore, in cases related to Iranian figures, using Persian sources as reliable references is of great importance.

Moreover, international sources show that this person is not only a top-level sports champion but also has an active career in Iranian cinema as both an actor and a director. This combination of skills and achievements in two distinct fields (sports and cinema) highlights the notable value of this individual. 5.233.235.145 (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to note for what it's worth that I've plugged the above text into an AI Generated Text detector and it said 99% Probability AI generated. The response by InfoExplorer2023 was flagged as 95% probability of being AI Generated, and BookLover070 at 100%. Furthermore, given the IP Address geolocates to Khuzestan and the subject of the article appears to be from Khuzestan according to his Wikipedia article, it feels like WP:COI is probably afoot. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 03:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe article about this Karate athlete should be preserved, and any attempts to delete it should be avoided. According to Wikipedia's guidelines, articles about notable athletes with significant achievements at the national or international level meet the criteria for retention on Wikipedia. This Karate athlete is a recognized champion with valuable medals at the continental level in Asia, which is considered one of the highest levels of international competition.Regarding sources, the article includes reliable and credible sources that have covered this champion in various media outlets and publications. According to Wikipedia's rules, such sources are sufficient to establish significant coverage (SIGCOV) and demonstrate notability. Especially in sports, champions who hold high-level medals, such as Asian championships, are clearly notable at both continental and global levels.A similar article, such as the one about Negin Altooni, who also has similar medals and notability in the field of Karate, demonstrates that such articles not only deserve to be kept but also serve as a reference for recognizing these champions within the community. This athlete, with international achievements and participation in continental and global competitions, clearly meets the notability requirements, and the article should be preserved in line with Wikipedia’s policies.Therefore, the request to delete this article is unfounded, and based on the sources and Wikipedia's rules, the article fully meets the criteria for notability and significant coverage.5.233.235.145 (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 5.233.235.145 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Quite likely another sockpuppet. Papaursa (talk) 15:14, 30 September 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. Disregarding socks, there is a clear consensus to Delete. It looks like there are a lot more of these types of articles in Category:Iranian martial arts biography stubs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hadi Kiani

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

Fails notability, never achieved anything important. the article tries to show him as a two time Asian Championship medalist but that's not in senior level. Sports2021 (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable athlete. Fails sports notability and WP:GNG. Lekkha Moun (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Success at youth martial arts events does not show WP notability, nor does a current world rank of #550. Nothing that shows WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MANOTE, or any other SNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In karate, unlike many other sports, there is no significant difference between the youth (under-21) and adult competitions in terms of credibility and status. In fact, both the youth and adult categories are evaluated at the same level, and there is no distinction in the value and importance of their achievements. This is often misunderstood by those who lack sufficient expertise in this sport. Many uninformed individuals, including some media outlets, may assume that youth competitions are less important than adult competitions. However, the reality is that youth competitions in karate are held with the same level of difficulty and seriousness, and the medals earned in both categories hold equal credibility and value.Particularly in prestigious continental events like the Asian Championships, which are overseen by the World Karate Federation (WKF), the medals are recognized as global successes. The quality of these competitions does not differ from that of adult competitions, and in many cases, athletes who achieve medals in the youth category quickly find remarkable success at the international adult level as well.This misunderstanding regarding the differences between age categories leads some individuals to fail to recognize the valuable achievements of athletes. However, from the perspective of experts and those who are deeply familiar with the structure of karate, such successes, even in the youth category, are by no means less significant than those in the adult category.Please advise users who lack sufficient knowledge about this sport not to remove templates or edit the article, as doing so only harms the integrity of information, such as that found on Wikipedia in English, and spreads misinformation about karate. Maintaining accuracy and reliability in the discourse surrounding this sport is essential.InfoExplorer2023 (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The issue of deleting certain sports articles, particularly regarding karate, requires careful and in-depth consideration. In this discipline, competitions and medals directly reflect the high level of skill and experience of the athletes. Karate, as a martial art, demands advanced techniques and high concentration, which can only be achieved through continuous practice and competition at the adult level.In karate, there is no separation between age categories, and all competitions are held in a professional and competitive manner. Winning a medal in Asian competitions, regardless of age, demonstrates the high abilities and skills of this athlete at an international level.Deleting these articles is not only incorrect but also unjustifiable from the perspective of the documentation and credibility of Wikipedia's sources. These articles can remain as reliable references in the field of karate and contribute to documenting the history and achievements of athletes.Therefore, based on my expertise in Wikipedia and the sport of karate, I firmly state that this article should be preserved to enhance the recognition of karate athletes' achievements and to document the history of this sport within Wikipedia.BookLover070 (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just as any editor can participate in an AFD discussion, except for limited editing restrictions, any editor can edit any article. We don't test anyone's knowledge before permitting them to edit an article as the policies that govern all articles are the same.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 29 September 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. Disregarding the socks, there is a clear consensus to Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amirreza Borzooei

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

Fails notability, never won a major medal. the article shows he won 2 Asian Championships bronze medals but they were in youth and junior level, no senior medal yet. Sports2021 (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of ever competing at a major (continental or world) event as an adult. Another competitor with youth continental championships that don't show WP notability. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MANOTE, or any other SNG. He finished second at one adult event and has a current world ranking of #53. He's young and has potential, but it's WP:TOOSOON to say he's WP notable. That currently requires a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Papaursa (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the world of karate, one of the unique features is that competitions for youth and adults are regarded equally in terms of value and importance, with neither group having superiority over the other. Unlike many other sports that often view youth competitions as a preliminary stage, in karate, both age categories are judged by the same standards, and the achievements and medals of both groups hold equal significance. This reality may seem unfamiliar to those who are not fully acquainted with karate, and some individuals or media may mistakenly perceive that youth competitions are less important than those for adults. However, the truth is that youth competitions are held with similar challenges and difficulties as those for adults, and the medals earned at both levels are equally credible and valuable.For example, in prestigious events like the Asian Championships, which are organized under the auspices of the World Karate Federation (WKF), the medals won are recognized as international successes, and the quality of competition is in no way inferior to that of adult events. It is noteworthy that athletes who achieve medals in the youth category often quickly find success at the international adult level as well. These misconceptions about the value of achievements in different age categories can lead to misunderstandings. However, experts and those familiar with the structure and complexities of karate clearly understand that success in any age category—whether youth or adult—is equally important and significant, and one should not regard the value of one over the other as lesser.InfoExplorer2023 (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— InfoExplorer2023 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep The issue of deleting certain sports articles, particularly regarding karate, requires careful and in-depth consideration. In this discipline, competitions and medals directly reflect the high level of skill and experience of the athletes. Karate, as a martial art, demands advanced techniques and high concentration, which can only be achieved through continuous practice and competition at the adult level.In karate, there is no separation between age categories, and all competitions are held in a professional and competitive manner. Winning a medal in Asian competitions, regardless of age, demonstrates the high abilities and skills of this athlete at an international level.Deleting these articles is not only incorrect but also unjustifiable from the perspective of the documentation and credibility of Wikipedia's sources. These articles can remain as reliable references in the field of karate and contribute to documenting the history and achievements of athletes.Therefore, based on my expertise in Wikipedia and the sport of karate, I firmly state that this article should be preserved to enhance the recognition of karate athletes' achievements and to document the history of this sport within Wikipedia.BookLover070 (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from some experienced editors. New editors, please refer to Wikipedia policy and describe how the sources that exist provide SIGCOV. This is required to establish notabiity, as Wikipedia judges it, not as it is understood in the world of Karate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, far from meeting WP:SPORTCRIT. The claims made by "keepers" above are strange, and the article is also disingenuously fluffed-up with claims of pursuing "karate professionally" at the age of 7. Geschichte (talk) 08:53, 29 September 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. asilvering (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Krishna (1993 TV series)

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

Sources on the page are unreliable and fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. A WP:BEFORE found nothing reliable, just more of the same. CNMall41 (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_DD_National#Drama_series. I was thinking of redirect to the production company Sagar Films but this has no source on the page. RangersRus (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Given the existing coverage (such as https://www.republicworld.com/entertainment/television/after-ramayan-twitterati-welcome-ramanand-sagars-shri-krishna#google_vignette, https://theprint.in/india/after-ramayan-and-mahabharat-now-shri-krishna-to-return-on-dd/407561/ etc etc); or redirect (/as a historically important series for/) to the network. Very opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Hinduism. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As Mushy Yank said above, remove some sources, and find more reliable sources, but very opposed to deletion Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, after some research, I'm just finding out that 160 episodes were filmed with the actor "Swapnil Joshi" but then they were deleted and refilmed from episode 73, Tilak has also wiped some articles too just because they contained some footage. and while deleted by some user, It also did air on ZEE TV, it has many indecisive things, for exmaple some sources say it aired from '93 to '96 while others say it's aired from '93 to '96 but later shifted to DD1, some other say that it was aired in '99 on ZEE TV for the first time and some that it aired on DD2-Metro and shifted to ZEETV and/or DD, It's very hard to find truthful sources, as all talk about the same thing but say it differently. for say the example mentioned above. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather keep it and do more research on it. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two mentions that verify it exists is hardly enough to establish notability. If that were the case, pretty much every television show would be notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely true, but it takes some time to find some reliable sources. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All articles talk about the same thing, just their matter is different, even with some or for say a lot of digging can be done but it results to the repetitive articles. Though for me deletion is not okay. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been up since 2009, and by now we all realize after quite some digging that no reliable sources with indepth significant coverage is to be found. Redirect is better than to keep. Right? RangersRus (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could've redirected, if for say there was any good mention of it anywhere, but any mentions of it are exotic across wikipedia Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.republicworld.com/entertainment/television/krishna-cast-here-is-a-list-of-actors-and-the-characters-they-play

https://www.indiatoday.in/television/soaps/story/after-ramayan-ramanand-sagar-s-shri-krishna-to-return-on-doordarshan-1670255-2020-04-23

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/after-ramayans-end-viewers-welcome-ramanand-sagars-shri-krishna/articleshow/75547221.cms

https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/coronavirus/news/after-ramayan-shri-krishna-returns-to-dd/articleshow/75359729.cms

https://www.indiatvnews.com/photos/entertainment-swapnil-joshi-shri-krishna-ramayan-comedy-circus-mahasangram-611899

https://www.filmibeat.com/television/news/2020/after-ramayan-and-mahabharat-doordarshan-to-bring-back-ramanand-sagars-shri-krishna-298001.html

https://hindi.news18.com/news/entertainment/tv-ramayan-will-end-today-on-doordarshan-shri-krishna-will-start-from-ss-3073219.html

https://www.aajtak.in/entertainment/television/story/krishna-janmashtami-2022-date-18-or-19-august-know-where-is-ramanand-sagar-shri-krishna-show-cast-tmovf-1519979-2022-08-18

https://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/tv/news/when-and-how-to-watch-shree-krishna-on-doordarshan/articleshow/75501800.cms

https://www.bhaskarhindi.com/city/mumbai/union-minister-piyush-goyal-congratulated-mahant-swami-maharaj-on-his-91st-birthday-1066201?infinitescroll=1

https://www.thelivemirror.com/doordarshan-brings-back-shri-krishna/

https://www.latestly.com/entertainment/tv/how-marathi-actor-swwapnil-joshi-became-the-common-link-between-dd-shows-uttar-ramayan-and-sri-krishna-1724038.html

https://www.indiatvnews.com/entertainment/tv/enjoyed-watching-ramayan-now-ramanand-sagar-s-shri-krishna-set-to-return-on-doordarshan-611513

https://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/photomazza/tv-photogalleries/janmashtami-2023-top-show-shri-krishna-1993-cast-where-is-yashoda-maiya-damini-kanwal-shetty-now/photoshow/msid-103423057,picid-103423197.cms

https://www.financialexpress.com/life/entertainment-sri-krishna-telecast-time-on-dd-national-doordarshan-sri-krishna-broadcast-timing-daily-1946373/

https://amarujala.com/photo-gallery/entertainment/television/shri-krishna-actor-krishna-aka-sarvadaman-d-banerjee-now-where-is-he

https://www.jansatta.com/photos/entertainment-gallery/shri-krishna-actor-mahendra-muralidhar-dhule-played-bhima-ramanand-sagar-serial-sri-krishna-3-times-played-kumbhakaran-still-looks-like-young-boy/1439996/3/

https://www.hindustantimes.com/tv/shri-krishna-the-show-that-turned-swapnil-joshi-into-god/story-pRZnHUDgao6rAmuqEwsInL.html

https://www.naidunia.com/entertainment/bollywood-ramanand-sagar-shri-krishna-will-be-retelecast-on-dd-national-form-3-may-2020-know-its-timings-5530789

https://zeenews.india.com/hindi/entertainment/photo-gallery-krishna-janmashtami-2022-know-how-much-shri-krishna-cast-serial-1993-cast-change-in-29-years/1306669

https://hindi.scoopwhoop.com/entertainment/where-is-1993-shri-krishna-show-sudama-actor-mukul-nag/

https://www.jansatta.com/photos/entertainment-gallery/shri-krishna-radha-reshma-modi-played-in-many-bollywood-movie-after-27-years-he-looks-changed-photos-covid-19/1404748/

These are some sources that I found. I think they're reliable Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wait https://www.bhaskarhindi.com/city/mumbai/union-minister-piyush-goyal-congratulated-mahant-swami-maharaj-on-his-91st-birthday-1066201?infinitescroll=1. is a wromg source help Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not worth entertaining a discussion when the first reference you supplied falls squarely under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Won't waste time looking at the rest as it seems to be a misunderstanding of what constitutes a reliable source. A redirect is acceptable as we can verify it exists, but nothing that shows it is notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so now that you mention that it falls Wikipedia:NEWSORGINDIA, I think, you're actually right. I think deletion would be ok, as there's no adequate source to find. (Ignore this here I was trying not to start an argument but oh well.) Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But again, I think this show deserves a page. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you changing your vote to delete?--CNMall41 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no. I am not. This show is of significance and deserves a page, no arguing Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I think, you're actually right. I think deletion would be ok, as there's no adequate source to find" - This is written as if you are. At least, it does agree there is no adequate sourcing so without it I am wondering your policy-based reasoning for keeping it. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is what I was thinking, until I kept finding stuff, Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also curious about this edit as you added content that is no where in the source. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The cast or the above para? Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about cast, I just corrected some errors, and if you're talking about the above para, It's common knowledge to know DD didn't stream it in '97 and hence it was handed to ZEE TV, and Sony & Star did stream it following 2001. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Common knowledge? I certainly didn't know about it. In Wikipedia we are allowed to state the obvious (e.g., the sky is blue), but what you added would be WP:OR at best. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any adequate source as all would "apparently fall under Wikipedia:NEWSORGINDIA", but here's a statement from the production team- https://production.sagarworld.com/shri-krishna Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Production company is considered primary and not secondary independent reliable source. RangersRus (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you need further source, here's an image of it airing on Zee TV, (footage is now deleted and replaced with SD Banerjee) Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis of sources.
- Source 1 and 2 are announcement of airing the show.
- Source 3 has passing mention with sale of VCD and the price being sold for.
- Source 4 is primary source sagarworld founded by the son and grandson of Ramanand Sagar, Director and Producer of the show.
- Source 5 is interview wirh Moti Sagar, the youngest son of Director and Producer Ramanand Sagar of the show.
- Source 6 is intervew with Govind Khatri, an actor from the show about what role was originally offered to him and about his life after the series.
- Source 7,8,9,10,11,12 are all about Sarvadaman D. Banerjee (main lead of the show) and interview with him, on his life after the series.

All sources are poor with some WP:NEWSORGINDIA and no reliable source independent of the makers and actors of the show with indepth significant coverage to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure your assessment is completely correct. Taking just one example, source 5 offers very significant coverage beside an interview, in a bylined article in a very reliable newspaper. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourve 5 says "Krishna made Swapnil Joshi a star overnight; co-director Moti Sagar talks about the TV show." This source is not independent of the claim by the makers themselves. Source needs to be completely secondary independent. RangersRus (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to copy and paste the whole article here? The major part is attributed to the journalist. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot make it any more clearer than what the journalist himself said on the top of his article about the maker talking about the show and anything that journalist wrote in that article is the outcome of the interview. It is not an indepedent source at all. I am leaving at that. RangersRus (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following parts can be attributed Kavita Awaasthi, journalist for The Hindustan Times, based on her interview with Sagar; the media outlet being considered generally reliable, they can be used to verify a number of facts that contribute to the notability of the program, such as, at least:

After making the successful TV show Ramayan, producer Ramanand Sagar wanted to tap into another epic show — the Bhagavat Puran. Produced by Ramanand, Subhash Sagar and Prem Sagar, and directed by Ramanand, Anand Sagar and Moti Sagar, Shri Krishna was one of the biggest grossers for Doordarshan during the seven years it was on air. The national broadcaster had a limit on the number of episodes it could air in the ’80s, but the ’90s brought about a change in these rules. A producer could now make a show for a longer duration.

Music composer Ravindra Jain composed the music for this serial. The title song, ‘Shree Krishna Govind Hare Murari’, became popular in India and abroad. The show ran for more than seven years, and had over 200 episodes. The show covered Krishna’s life, from his birth to the time of his grandchildren.

The show was shot in Gujarat’s Umbergaon and Vadodara, where they put up huge sets.

Swapnil had a huge fan following because of the show. People thought he was Krishna.

This, in my opinion, in a 2016 article about a 1993 program, can be given a certain credit and at least contributes to the apparent notability of the show (that had, as I am sure you have noticed, 221 episodes and originally aired during 6 years.....) and I think that the material, if the page was redirected, would be lost, which would be detrimental to the encyclopaedia. (And that's just one source). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^{omg finally for goodness' sake someone mentions this, I'm not trying to be rude but why can't someone just read the sources and watch the show for 2 whole minutes to get some fruit out of it. GOD! (replied to mushy yank)} Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are reliable sources present, opposed to deletion. Imsaneikigai (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Demonstrate so called reliable sources present that has not already been analysed above. RangersRus (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_DD_National#Drama_series: where it will only need to be verifiable, which it is, rather than to have reliable sources proving notability, which it lacks. Owen× ☎ 17:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for additional and more thorough source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:07, 29 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aina Asif

AfDs for this article:

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

NC less than a year ago but given that two editors have since been blocked, It think Asif needs another look. I'm unable to find evidence she meets N:ACTOR. Star Mississippi 01:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, Entertainment, and Pakistan. Star Mississippi 01:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreliable sources. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with multiple significant roles in notable productions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Good catch. The last AFD was closed as non-consensus due to socks, despite it being a clear delete at the time. A year later, I still don’t see how this meets NACTOR. Those claiming it meets NACTOR need to realize that simply stating it isn’t enough and it falls under WP:ATA therefore they must demonstrate how the subject meets NACTOR. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NACTOR says "may be considered notable" based on roles, not "is considered notable" (my emphasis). We still need the significant coverage and I cannot find enough to show notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CNMall41 (talk • contribs)
General comment: The essay WP:ATA is indeed rather interesting to read, it recommends not to cite a guideline without explaining why one thinks a subject meets its requirement. For ex. ’See WP: XXX" not good. But "Meets Wp:XXX because YYY", good (especially if one adds sources). Can also apply to certain delete !votes, btw, :D-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't do that to established editors, which we all are @Mushy Yank Star Mississippi 20:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do what, exactly? Quote ATA? Are you joking? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: comply WP:SIGCOV. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 181.197.42.215, I’m dying to know how you came to this conclusion? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That user is currently blocked so unlikely to reply. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage found; fails to meet NACTOR and GNG. I agree with CNMall41 that multiple roles do not confirm notability, but rather suggest the possibility of being notable. GrabUp - Talk 08:23, 6 October 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 01:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sangguniang Kabataan of Barangay Cagniog, Surigao City

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

Non-notable youth council of a non-notable barangay in Surigao City. Redirecting as an WP:ATD would be a bad idea since this is not a plausible search term. HueMan1 (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Philippines. HueMan1 (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. We don't even have Surigao City Council and Sangguniang Barangay of Cagniog. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Cagniog was created two days ago by the same editor. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: Draft:Sangguniang Kabataan of Barangay Cagniog, Surigao City was created first and draftified; the creator then recreated in mainspace. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --- Tito Pao (talk) 10:59, 3 October 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. ✗plicit 01:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Loo-Talvari

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. When I first came across this article, the only source cited was to an unreliable genealogy website. I removed that source because it isn't usable per the reliable sources noticeboard. The subject's only claim to notability in the article is who her husband and brother are. This seems to be a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. 4meter4 (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Estonia, Russia, and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per http://etbl.teatriliit.ee/artikkel/loo-talvari_ida8 is a serious source --Estopedist1 (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Do you even do a proper WP:BEFORE nominating? It's not a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. She was a prominent opera singer in her own right. She has an entry at Eesti Entsüklopeedia. There is an Eesti Televisioon documentary about her. Detailed article in Eesti Sõna. Has a page at the Estonian Central Library. There's literally a bust of her at the Art Museum of Estonia. Passes WP:NMUSIC, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. ExRat (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ExRat Thank you for finding reference. I do think it's wrong to make assumptions about BEFORE searches made by others; particularly when all of the sources you found are not in English. It's unlikely that Estonian language references, like the ones you found, would be found in a standard WP:BEFORE. Indeed requiring nominators to search in foreign languages they don't speak or read or criticizing them for not doing so is bordering on WP:Bad faith.4meter4 (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4. I do apologize if my phrasing sounded rude. It wasn't intentional. In retrospect, I should have phrased it as "Did you do a proper WP:BEFORE nominating?" or "Are you sure you did a thorough WP:BEFORE before nominating?" I can see how that came off as rather impolite. I do however disagree that nominators shouldn't be required to search for valid references in foreign languages before nominating. If someone is going to nominate an article for deletion, it's my opinion that before they nominate, it should be incumbent on them to do a very thorough WP:BEFORE. Valid references can't be disregarded just because they don't happen to be in English. Google translate can help parse references. Cheers, and once again, apologies. ExRat (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't access it without going to a computer at the university in a different city (or finding a paper copy), but there was what seems like a significant article about her life and career in Göteborgs Handels- och Sjöfartstidning 4 March 1960, and another promising one in the same newspaper on 13 January 1950, in addition to what has been mentioned above. /Julle (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the sources identified by ExRat including a national encyclopedia and a dedicated television documentary that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:56, 3 October 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.