Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 18:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nedumpally[edit]

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

After looking into the sourcing for this article, I realized that it, like many family articles, is likely a vanity page. Majority of sources given turned up negative on reference to any event directly involving the family, much less naming them. Those that did presented the identical information as those found in the retained A.K. Thomas source, which simply names the family in a list of baptized brahmin. Most sources identify this story as a legend (not even going to touch that issue). WP:BEFORE reveals only a couple of non-notable recent individuals and a handful of page mirrors. Pbritti (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, India, and Kerala. Pbritti (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator This page was created over 15 years ago during the period of time when IPs could create pages. As such, we unfortunately can not expect commentary from the page creator. If you are the page creator, please provide page numbers on the retained sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep seems well-sourced. Middle Eastern christian family names are not in my wheelhouse, but it looks ok to me. Oaktree b (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: As best I can tell, those sources make no reference to the family in question (Indian, not ME, but I can understand the confusion). With the exception of the A.K. Thomas source, they serve to cite Thomas the Apostle's presence in India. Additionally, sources were provided sans page number, so there's no way of knowing if there was any additional intention besides WP:SYNTH contextualizing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per explanation above. If we can't verity the sources, they're as good as useless. Oaktree b (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability, article topic already covered by Saint Thomas Christians Poketama (talk) 10:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St. Thomas Syro-Malabar Church, Palayur#Legend. The most substantial part of the article is the account of St Thomas' ministry at Palayur (old spelling Palayoor), but this is rather better covered in that article. This is indeed only a legend, but appears in that article with two sources, so that it is verified. This is one of the 7 major churches Ēḻarappaḷḷikaḷ. Beyond that all there is in the article is the naming of families, which might go into a list article but probably does not require even that. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider the option of a redirect. As always, this AFD may be closed at any time should a closer believe a rough consensus has been achieved.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 30 September 2022 (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 geological features on Ceres#Craters. ✗plicit 23:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annona (crater)[edit]

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

Crater on Ceres that does not pass WP:GNG, a search of Google Scholar brought up a complete paucity of significant coverage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also craters on Ceres that showed a lack of significant coverage from a search:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Astronomy, and Geography. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_geological_features_on_Ceres#Craters, notability not shown for these among the hundreds of craters on this dwarf planet. Reywas92^Talk 15:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to List_of_geological_features_on_Ceres#Craters.4meter4 (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2022 (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.

Brandon Bennett[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Duonaut^{(talk | contribs)} 23:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can't find any significant coverage of him outside of games coverage and announcements of his being picked/leaving. However, I did find this, although I don't believe awards constitute nobility for American Football players. Given this I believe he does not pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Duonaut^{(talk | contribs)} 22:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. Duonaut^{(talk | contribs)} 22:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These AFDs are getting ridiculous. Bennett played in over 80 games, had over 1,000 rushing yards, and was named AFC Player of the Month. Clearly passes GNG (as just about anyone with any NFL experience would), see [1], [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] and [7]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I'll withdraw and attempt to continue improving, then. Duonaut^{(talk | contribs)} 23:35, 29 September 2022 (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. There is consensus against deletion; the arguments for deletion are relatively weak in that they do not discuss the topic's coverage in reliable sources. But there's not clear consensus to keep as a standalone article either; a plausible merger proposal has been made but not really pursued here. It can be followed up on the article talk page. Sandstein 05:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Toyota Way[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is essentially an ad for Toyota. If anything, it should be merged into an existing article, if it even belongs there at all. Too many primary sources. This was previously deleted but recreated; I'm neutral on potentially salting the page as well. Fails the GNG.InvadingInvader (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Liker book is a standard for business management and marketing classes, so it at least has WP:N for that, and it defines what has worked for a very successful company and how others can apply that knowledge, not just serving as an infomercial for Toyota. And no, an article that's been up for sixteen years doesn't need salting. Nate • (chatter) 21:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does it have to have its own article though? The explanation you provided does sound like something trying to be marketed to me. InvadingInvader (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Telling you a book is used in colleges isn't marketing, it's simply stating its common use as a tool in business management. Not everything is advertising, and this isn't. Nate • (chatter) 22:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Article needs fixing but is definitely fixable. I can see how the lead is off-putting; it dives straight into the content rather than providing context. But that's a reason to improve, not delete. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There are a significant number of reliable sources available. I don't have a strong opinion about the article, but I tried to take a first stab at improving it by reducing the corporate jargon and generalizing the context. Dekimasuよ! 04:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not shorten it down and merge it into another Toyota-related article? InvadingInvader (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be more about business administration than about Toyota itself. What makes it notable is the outside attention to it and the attempts to teach it as a style of management that can be applied to other contexts. It does seem to have attracted editors engaged in marketing it as well. Dekimasuよ! 15:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It apparently passes WP:GNG, but I don't think that's enough for this to warrant its own Wikipedia. It's mainly (outdated) promotional spam for working at Toyota. At most I think this should just be a mention within a related article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This subject should not have its own article. It was a management strategy that was promoted by the company. It is no longer applicable and it would be better to mention it in the History of Toyota article. This subject is related to the corporation, yet its weak notability is indicated that it is not even listed in the "Template:Toyota Motor Corporation" which is a collection of everything Toyota that includes distant topics such as Toyota flowers developed for gardens at its factory. Cheers! CZmarlin (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs more work, but should not be deleted. There is a reason this page has had nearly 1 million pageviews since it was first created. Ironically, despite its name, the subject has become much, much bigger than the company itself. As Mrschimpf was saying, the Toyota Way, the Toyota Production System, and lean manufacturing have all become a standard part of the MBA syllabus. The article needs to be fixed to clearly state where it fits within the academic and business management debates, as the very concept of the "Toyota Way" continues to be tested, challenged, and applied across multiple companies, industries, and countries. (And yes, a neutral encyclopedic entry needs to go beyond just the Liker book and should take a balanced view from other perspectives.) Cielquiparle (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Toyota Production System (especially the criticism section). This clearly and obviously passes WP:GNG, and it is hard to call the article "an ad for Toyota" when a significant portion of the article discusses its failures. There are also more sources extant -- a two-minute Google search turned up this NPR piece and this paper, which cites many other papers. Both are independent and critical in nature. The thing is, though, that I'm not sure whether there is a meaningful distinction between this and TPS; a lot of the sources seem to use the two interchangeably. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Either keep this article with improved citations, or merge into another related article. Toyota Production System is the most logical article to accept the merge, although this article would be a good fit for the Lean manufacturing article due to Toyota's reputation in this field. Note that "lean manufacturing toyota" is one of the first suggestions when searching "lean manufacturing" in Google. Tonedebone (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of this too, but if you start reviewing the academic literature, it turns out the two concepts – Toyota Production System (TPS) and the Toyota Way – are interrelated, but also separate. Someone with background in business management or organizational theory needs to fix this, so it's clear across the three pages (also with lean manufacturing). The fixes need to be part of a bigger project. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can have articles be on two related concepts. If both eventually become too big, we can split them later. InvadingInvader (talk) 04:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider the possibility of a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV. There's an entire independent book on this topic from a reliable academic publisher and a feature article in The New York Times among other significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2022 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cristiano Abreu[edit]

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

Semi-pro footballer with no evidence of significant coverage. No evidence of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC, the latter of which requires that Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. I was unable to find such sources from searching Google News, ProQuest and DDG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found two mentions in Record newspaper in Portugal, including when he was one of five members of the "B" team called up for the Allianz Cup in 2018 and the match report where he came on as a substitute at the 72nd minute but this is obviously not enough even for WP:SPORTBASIC. No coverage either in the other 4 major Portuguese news sites covering football listed on Geek Sports Guide. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2022 (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. JBW (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedzai[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article has been recreated without satisfying WP:NCORP. References seem to be dead links, press releases, unreliable sources, paid articles. The creator of the article and some contributors may be connected. VV 10:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and California. VV 10:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nom is incorrect on a number of points. First, the article was not recreated without satisfying WP:NCORP - it was never deleted (the last AfD closed as "No Consensus") but leaving that aside, there are a bunch of references in "Further Reading" which meet NCORP's criteria. Second, *one* of the refs (singular) was a dead link which was due to a parameter included in the URL. As it turns out, the same reference is used again in the article but without the extra parameter and it works fine. I've fixed the bad ref. I agree that a lot of the references within the article that are used to support facts and other information in the body of the article fail NCORP's criteria for establishing notability but the ones in Further Reading meet NCORP:

There's no doubt that the topic company is notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These were the same sources you gave last time, they didn't seem particularly helpful. Does the company have any non-press release stories in the media that discuss it a length? Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom, GNews is at least four pages of press release type stuff, then it gets into casual mentions of the business. Nothing notable for our purposes here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 29 September 2022 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bunder[edit]

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

Most sources found are primarily mentioning the Under in passing mention or coming from user-written sources. Primary concern is notability; confident it isn't a hoax, but this article seems better either deleted or merged into another article. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. i added a reference. The word is Bunder, not Under. And it is definitely not a hoax. The old word is actually quite familiar to modern dutch speakers, probably because Winnie the Pooh in the dutch translation lives in "honderdbunderland", a hundred bunder lands. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The deWP article has a number of usable references (the nlWP one is very undersourced). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. de:Bunder is a well developed article which is well referenced. The sources there prove the topic passes GNG. I placed a tag for translation on the article so that German speaking wikipedians on the english wiki can assist in properly developing the English language wiki article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Whatever the potential of the article, as it stands it is woefully undersourced and fails WP:V, which dictates that contested unsourced material must be removed from the encyclopedia. Sandstein 06:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I removed the unreferenced bits and added a high quality source. There's lots of room to improve but that, at the very least, is enough to keep the article. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 09:00, 7 October 2022 (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 02:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Akinola Pedro[edit]

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

Fails WP:SINGER. They might pass part 10 of WP:SINGER but it's a pretty weak case. Searched Google and wasn't able to find new information but this isn't my area of expertise so if someone can point me a better direction add it as a comment and I'll go looking for it. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Bands and musicians. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suppose if the song was used prominently in the video game, I'd give it a pass under part 10 of ~~MUSIC~~ SINGER, simply having a song on an album isn't enough, based on how I read it. I've not played the game so I can't comment how prominently it's featured. Oaktree b (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very little significant, independent, and reliable coverage beyond the local news TV interview of the single event of him being one of 10 out of 10,000 to win a spot on the game's soundtrack. Uhai (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The DCTop20 artist profile of him appears to be legitimate coverage at first, but looking closer it's a promotional company for artists that he's likely paying (see here), so any of its content is not independent or reliable.
The Hype Magazine source gives conflicting information regarding the contest, saying that it was 8 tracks selected out of 20,000 instead of 10 out of 10,000, so I'm not inclined to say it's reliable.
The HipHopDX article is just two paragraphs, one of which is just a quotation, so it's not really significant or independent.
The local news TV interview also states it was 20,000 submissions but the offical NBA 2K YouTube video description states 10 out of 10,000 so that's what I'm taking as the source of truth.

Additionally, from what I was able to learn (here), his track wasn't even part of the original soundtrack of the game but was added to the game later alongside other tracks with updates to the game. To me, this doesn't even qualify him for WP:SINGER #10. The claim that he also has a track on the NBA 2K21 "next gen soundtrack" (which is, again, a collection of additional tracks that are not part of the original 2K21 soundtrack) appears completely unsubstantiated as I could find nothing that supports this beyond his own LinkedIn page. Uhai (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2022 (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. A redirect can be manually created if desired, and then contested at RfD if objected to. Sandstein 05:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bethel Village, Indiana[edit]

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

This appears to be a subdivision which was built starting from some point in the mid-1950s; the associated church was built in the course of this. I looked at the church website, and there's no history given, so I cannot tell whether it moved from some other nearby location. Searching produces nothing that would indicate any other history of the place or show any GNG notability. As always, I do not see the value of redirecting to the township. Mangoe (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >> Wayne Township, Bartholomew County, Indiana per Wikipedia:Geoland, which clearly states: If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it. Djflem (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. I don't see the need for a redirect either. (The quote given in the above comment does not appear in GEOLAND). Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jesús Torres (composer)[edit]

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

Non-notable composer and obligatory vanity page. An in-depth search revealed nothing but references to another artist of the same name. (Edit): It seems that the page has been WP:REFBOMBed with non-reliable sources (e.g., publishing companies and labels among others). Why? I Ask (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I get exactly one hit in German? in GNews, confirming he's a composer. One of many people in a list. Delete for lack of any kind of significant sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2022 (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) 20:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yegor Ganichev[edit]

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

Meets neither NFOOTY or GNG, and even if NFOOTY hadn't been deprecated, they would not meet it. Was sent to Draft in the hopes of improvement, but was immediately moved back without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - found a trivial mention in Online Vologda and an article written by him in the local Vologda news portal UpInfo. No detailed coverage about him in news sources that are independent. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2022 (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 Mortal Kombat characters. Merge as an alternative to deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rain (Mortal Kombat)[edit]

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

Like Cyrax, Sektor and Skarlet, no longer meets WP:GNG standards. Rain has been playable in only four games since his addition as a Prince-inspired joke character nearly three decades ago (his lone claim to fame). No viable third-party coverage and reception consists of listicles and unreliable sources. Should be merged/redirected to the list of MK characters. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete the page. Explain the problem more deeply. This is a good article, like other Mortal Kombat Articles, they all need to stay. How can I help? What changes should I make? Where should the article change? Thank you 2601:5C7:4100:3600:519:5331:6020:59B5 (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC) — 2601:5C7:4100:3600:519:5331:6020:59B5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. Skynxnex (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the relevant list of fictional characters. Andre🚐 23:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I understand. I ask any Administrator who sees this discussion for help, but to NOT delete the article. It is important, just as the rest. I Oppose the deletion of this article. Oppose/Keep 2601:5C7:4100:3600:3CB5:B0FD:516C:D555 (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC) — 2601:5C7:4100:3600:3CB5:B0FD:516C:D555 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Redirect Slapping together a bunch of trivial coverage does not an article make, just padding to give the illusion of notability. The article does not indicate the character was important to non-fans. See also WP:WPINWA. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of articles like that. Why prey on this one? 2601:5C7:4100:3600:61A2:2109:1849:6506 (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)— 2601:5C7:4100:3600:61A2:2109:1849:6506 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is the third single-purpose account disrupting this discussion and most likely the same user, as their writing styles are the same. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 15:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP address can inadvertently be swapped so I will give the benefit of the doubt and assume they are not trying to appear like multiple people on purpose. That said, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for the answer to that question. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that’s good to know. Thanks. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 21:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate that, I am not trying to disrupt anyone, I am a constructive editor here on Wikipedia.

I oppose this articles deletion. The fact that it is nominated for deletion is bullshit. There is nothing wrong with the

Article, please explain the problem to me in full, in-depth detail, and I will report it to Wikipedia and Top Admins and solve the problem; Let's not rock the boat for anyone, shall we? 2601:5C7:4100:3600:4D4:D5A6:4141:9E32 (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain WP:CIVIL, insults will not help your case at all. It was already explained why the article is problematic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm But I wouldn't mind seeing the Magic of Top Admins and how they'd rescue this article :) Then we can watch Flying Pigs in Snowing Hell feature next. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List_of_Mortal_Kombat_characters. Fails WP:GNG. First paragraph of the reception is the usual listing of listcruft and rankings mentioning him, with the usual laughable (sorry, can't mince the words here) stuff like "ranked Rain 36th in his 2015 rating of the 64 series characters" stuff that pretty much says "he is not important, even in-universe". The second paragraph is no better. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per Piotrus above. That's generally the sort of examination I give these sorts of articles, and it's spot on. Sergecross73 msg me 15:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I'm guilty of having padded out the article with such content seven years ago, because back then that was the standard for VG character articles. But of course Wikipedia is constantly evolving as are its notability guidelines, not to mention Rain has still had no more than a minimal presence in the games since then. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No insults or tensions wanted, I apologize if I offended anyone. I make my position clear, I oppose the deletion of this article.

Just edit out the problems would be my suggestion. I want to help. 2601:5C7:4100:3600:5CD8:E344:52B1:378F (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not rock the boat, I suggest everyone should list the problems with the Article, and then edit them out instead of deleting it entirely; This will only cause trouble due to the fact of there being no more information on this character. Instead of deletion, fix the problems and keep the article alive so it won't be lost to anyone who looks for him. 2601:5C7:4100:3600:E11A:66EF:A136:CA45 (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The core problem is that there aren't enough third party reliable sources that cover the subject in significant detail, and if that can't be addressed here, then there's no hope for the article. Sergecross73 msg me 23:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are familiar with the MK wiki, I assume? There is a ton of information about all the characters there. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 00:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Like Nightwolf, Rain has received a review and other critical opinions and analyses based on his DLC appearances. We have one from Comicbook.com, Shacknews, GamesRadar, IGN and Bleeding Cool. This also shows he's been reviewed by Fearnet, but the page itself appears to have not been archived. He also has some Valnet sources covering him, but it appears that they are not longer accepted for establishing notability, a decision that I do not agree with, but yeah. Cyrax and Sektor had no such sources (at least from what I could find), fair enough, but Rain does. MoonJet (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lordy, here we go again with somehow thinking a trailer press-released by NRS announcing a DLC automatically establishes character notability because a few gaming sites pick it up. It does not. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spamming random trivial sources is a waste of people's time and energy, please be aware that competence of evaluating sources is needed in editing Wikipedia. Run of the mill announcements are trivial, full stop. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you guys checked the sources, they do more than merely announce Rain as DLC. If what you were saying was true, I would had been listing more here. I mean, if you still think this isn't enough, that's fine, but these are not mere announcements. MoonJet (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters per Piotrus and Zxcvbnm. The refs provided in the article are unreliable refs, trivial overviews from RS, or questionable listicles. I appreciate MoonJet's hardworking efforts in finding refs, and while I disagreed previously with the editor, Moonjet's arguments could be reasonable to other editors. Therefore, thanks for working to save the article and building the consensus. However, I'm afraid I have to disagree with the refs meeting SIGCOV. This is marked as a trailer, thus a routine announcement. A copy-and-paste error from the website caused each of the first two paragraphs to be duplicated. So there are just two paragraphs- the content's first paragraph is a routine overview of the character, followed by a three-sentence casual critical evaluation. I'm not at all convinced that this short paragraph could be considered SIGCOV. Further, the overview from IGN is decent; however, it is, by and large, a gameplay overview. Also, for Comic Book- I should comment that per WP:VG/RS it has inconclusive reliability. And this ref is a trailer, routine gameplay info, and trivial overview. Similarly, this is also routine info on this trailer. Consider WP:GNG's additional note: Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources- to me, these examples all fall under announcement columns or minor news stories. However, many thanks for MoonJet's alternative opinion and overview, which shows a reasonable disagreement in the definition of "trivial" and "announcement columns". VickKiang (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters#Rain, unlike Nightwolf, who had significant coverage that was actually about the character, the only references here are just video game sites covering the launch of a DLC, there is no actual significant coverage of the character themselves in that coverage, just the DLC they came in. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am very familiar with Mortal Kombat. There is always hope for the article, we could add more references like you want and merge it to the list then. 2601:5C7:4100:3600:7CC1:3574:DFFC:3096 (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do better than WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES? VickKiang (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge an an WP:ATD. The reception is iffy and I understand why editors think it is not significant. This could still be used to improve the character write-up at the main list. Archrogue (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources posted by MoonJet are sufficient to meet GNG. Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters per nominator et al. Discounting the obvious loads of non-reliable source currently in the article, the remainder of the coverage, including that brought up in this AFD is either very trivial, or simple routine coverage of announcements and trailers. None of it is sufficient to show that the character is notable enough to have his own article independent of the main article on the franchise characters. Rorshacma (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
so will it be merged? is that how we save the article? 2601:5C7:4100:3600:F978:8FFD:64EA:B08E (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on your definition of "save". There had always been a List of Mortal Kombat characters and that is in no danger of being removed. As a group, the franchise's characters are incontrovertibly notable. It's when you get down to individual characters being notable enough for their own pages is where the trouble lies. That is fine on FANDOM but not on Wikipedia per its policies on notability. Nominating these pages for deletion does not necessarily mean all trace of them should be removed from Wikipedia. AfD is often used as a venue for merge discussions when the article is clearly not notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:49, 6 October 2022 (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!} 20:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dora Serviarian Kuhn[edit]

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

non-notable — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject fails WP:GNG and the current article appears to be the result of professional interference. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm glad they (the Grammophone Magazine) called him that, because that's all I can find. Gnewspapers has his name associated various orchestras on tour, nothing rising to GNG standards. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2022 (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!} 19:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lokanath Swami[edit]

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

NN swami and member of ISKCON, just plain no outside notability. Sources that qualify for the GNG are lacking, beyond namedrops. Almost all sources are from ISKCON and its various organs ... as witness the "Padayatra Press" responsible for publishing all the subject's books, an ISKCON house publisher with almost all of its catalog devoted to the subject. I agree that the subject is good at self-promotion, but the article violates WP:BIO and WP:PROMO. Ravenswing 19:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and India. Ravenswing 19:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant coverage in reliable sources entirely independent of ISKCON can be found. Cullen328 (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Needs references independent of ISKCON. Would change if someone found suitable independent reviews of their works showing them to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Gusfriend (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gusfriend @Cullen328 @Ravenswing there are some child sex abuse allegations on the subject that was recently removed in the page history. I am not sure if that makes the subject notable. Other than that his work is not significant to merit his own article. Venkat TL (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They were all sourced from ISKCON, apparently, part of their own internal muddlings, and something about which they curiously did not see fit to take to law enforcement agencies. Ravenswing 13:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There do not appear to be independent, credible, sources to establish notability here. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:1182:3F67:2F9E:3B8C (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability or proper sources. John (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG, all the non-trivial coverage is non-independent. Outside of the subject's organization there is no coverage, which is a clear indication that the subject is not notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not Notable as the article fails in WP:GNG Contributor008 (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2022 (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wild at Heart (book)[edit]

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

Article contains no WP:RS and is written as a summary of the book in a purely self-promotional tone indicating WP:PUFF and using WP as a form of WP:PROMO. Subject of this article does not meet standards of WP:N. Volcom95 (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for various reasons: First, allegations of PROMO make no sense. The book is 20 years old, made its splash, and conversations have long since passed by it. I think I encountered it in 2002-04... it made such a little impression on me, I literally do not remember the year I was exposed to Eldredge's uncompelling take on manhood. But on to the BEFORE failure: 15 year retrospective from Religion News Service, Christianity Today editorial, Denver Post talking about Drug Cartel members reading it, Critique of the book in Jesus and John Wayne... I could go on, and Volcom95 should have. In short, this is an unquestionably notable book, with a badly written article, that the nominator appears to have expended zero effort to understand. Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The mention in the article in the Denver Post hardly qualifies this work to be notable. Further, the link you've provided to the Jesus and John Wayne book makes no mention of this work. As written, this article is purely a promotional platform for the book, not an analysis of its impact or importance Volcom95 (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Volcom95, I understand you're new here, but the Denver Post article demonstrating a wider cultural impact of a work is precisely the sort of evidence that demonstrates notability. I'm going to assume that you looked at the wikilink to our article, instead of the Baptist News article, which includes this:

Du Mez’s first hint that a radical shift had taken place in the world of white American evangelicalism came when students directed her attention to John Eldredge’s Wild at Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man’s Soul. First published in 2001, the book sold more than 4 million copies in the United States alone. Men are brimming with testosterone, Eldredge explained, because God needs warriors. Men are dangerous, unpredictable, combative and aggressively sexual — characteristics that fitted them for lives of adventure and leadership. Instead of repenting of these traits, Eldredge said, Christian men should embrace them.
In 2015, as she watched evangelicals lining up behind the strutting embodiment of the militant masculinity celebrated in Eldredge’s book, Du Mez decided to take a closer look.

Finally, I just don't get your assertion that this is promotional: the book is 21 years old, this article was started over 16 years ago. This is like saying a hypothetical overly positive article on Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is promotional: it might well meet those definitions, but the financial impact based on time and distance is negligible. Regardless, tone is a good reason to edit the article, and only a reason for deletion if it's incurable. Jclemens (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhh, those fellows sound interesting, I wonder what their soundcloud is like? Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment I was hoping we'd find book reviews, which would help AUHTOR. This [8] appears RS, but I'm not certain of the quality of the source. This sort of mentions it in the New Yorker [9]. Can anyone find other sources? Christian book reviews are not in my bag of tricks. Oaktree b (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Christianity Today and Religion News Service are both reviews, and two is the minimum. There are clearly more out there, but linkrot will have taken some down in the past 21 years. It's not hard to find more--I suggest starting with a search string like "Wild at Heart Eldredge" and adding more specific terms like 'review' until you get what you're looking for. Jclemens (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the explanation above then. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources provided by Jclemens are plenty to establish GNG. There's varied coverage in independent, notable publications. Sure, the article needs a bit of work, but there's good reason to delete as far as I can see. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I started this article a couple years after I read the book. I hated the book, but at the time it was very influential among evangelicals, so I started the article. "Written as a summary of the book in a purely self-promotional tone indicating WP:PUFF and using WP as a form of WP:PROMO" was never remotely on my radar- like I said I hated the book and recognized it as harmful at the time. Staecker (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually a highly significant work, it's just that the article needs a whole lot of work. St Anselm (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the significant coverage of the book in multiple reliable sources identified in this discussion that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable independent sources found. The article needs improvement, not deletion. Archrogue (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBOOK.4meter4 (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2022 (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!} 18:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Eldredge[edit]

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

Article contains no WP:RS and is written in a purely self-promotional tone indicating WP:PUFF and using WP as a form of WP:PROMO. Subject of this article does not meet standards of WP:N or WP:BLP. Volcom95 (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, California, and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NAUTHOR point 3 for Wild at Heart, plenty of other RS coverage on him in other contexts: [10], [11], [12], [13] for starters, and there appears to be a lot more out there beyond this; see my contributions to other AfD on his books. Jclemens (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. The article is pretty poor, but deletion is not cleanup. St Anselm (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with both comments above. The article is not well done, but there are RS citations and the article does appear to meet the notability guidelines. I vote to keep, but the article should be cleaned up and use a more neutral tone. Go4thProsper (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . I have removed the vast majority of the article as it was improperly sourced and not very encyclopaedic. But the subject meets GNG, with the sources provided above. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified in this discussion so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2022 (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. Consensus here is to Keep but existing sources need to be incoporated into the content of the article. Improvement needed or we might see a return trip to AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Captivating[edit]

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

Article contains no citations and no WP:RS sources that would indicate this work should be part of an encyclopedia. As a work of literature, this does not meet basic criteria for WP:N. Appears to be written as a self-promotional WP:BROCHURE Volcom95 (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While not as notable as the companion AfD, this book has plenty of coverage such as Christianity Today review, the inflammatorily-named "Let Him Romance You: Rape Culture and Gender Violence in Evangelical Christian Self-Help Literature" here, a First Things review. Our article may need to be seriously improved, but Notability is not in serious question here. Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the significant coverage of the book in multiple reliable sources identified above by Jclemens that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage of this has been found. The article needs an expansion but this can be done over time. Archrogue (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. St Anselm (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2022 (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!} 18:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Media[edit]

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

Article about an unreleased film, not referenced to anywhere near enough reliable source coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria at WP:NFO. As always, we don't want an article about every film that enters the production pipeline -- with a few admitted exceptions for really high profile projects on the order of Star Wars or Marvel films, we primarily want articles about films that have come out the end of the production pipeline and been seen by critics and the public. But this is referenced to a couple of very short production blurbs and an unreliable source that isn't support for notability at all, and there's no prospect of increased coverage in the future. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to secure the permanent notability of a never-released film project that died in development a decade ago. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find no sources, and it's been shelved since 2008, so we likely won't see any more. Oaktree b (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Queen of Media is more common as a nickname than an unreleased film. If inclusion is warranted, it's best done as being part of a list of minor unreleased movies (if such article exists). InvadingInvader (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also did not find any reliable sources. I agree with the nominator that per Wikipedia:NFOE the film fails to meet notability criteria as it does not have enough sources and it does not fall within the exceptions noted there. Jtrrs0 (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2022 (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. No reason to draw this out much longer, given the obvious consensus. I'll also salt the different iterations. Randykitty (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Bishop (performing artist)[edit]

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

Deleted multiple times under many different titles. This version was rejected at draft but moved tendentiously by conflicted user, so here we are majority of the sources do NOt support the content. Theroadislong (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was actually just about to nominate it myself, but thank you for doing the work on it. For the record for others, [14] has a slew of comments already made to the page creator letting them know the article is not ready for mainspace. The article itself also appears promotional and at least somewhat like a conflict of interest. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 16:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previously deleted as William Bishop (Author, Musician), William Bishop (Musician, Author), Draft:William Bishop, Draft:William Bishop (Musician) and William Bishop (singer). There is also an ongoing sockpuppet investigation. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not ready for an article, especially with the slew of failed verification feedback during draft phase. Before this was nominated, I left a note for the editor who bypassed AfC and moved it to article space and was hoping they would reconsider. Too late now. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this is what wikipedia is for. Sourcing just isn't enough to have an article. Bypassing AfC is a concern. Should likely SALT this. Oaktree b (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would also support SALT on this. Clearly has been recreated too many times by this point. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 17:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ditto ☆ Bri (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt scope_creep^Talk 19:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Edwardx (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt: significant COI concerns, entirely promotional, and notability has not been established. The claims in the article are not verified by the sources. Bypassing AFC during active COI and SPI investigations also suggest the editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Melcous (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. QuietHere (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2022 (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 rampage killers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of rampage killers (mass murders committed using grenades)[edit]

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

This feels like an unneccessarily trivial subset of List of rampage killers. I would support merging back into the main list. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Crime, and Lists. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of rampage killers. If that main list of rampage killers gets too large, then it would be adequate to have lists by country. That main article already has a table of statistics that mentions grenade attacks, and that seems adequate. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of rampage killers, since the list does absolutely nothing to indicate that 'using grenades' (or indeed 'comparable explosive devices') makes this subset independently notable. Or indeed anything more than an arbitrary distinction thought up by some contributor, for no legitimate reason at all. There are enough serious problems with Wikipedia's serial/rampage killer content (starting with endemic WP:BLP violations, though there are other issues too) without making it even harder to monitor such content through pointless subdivision. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could split it into articles where the grenades are thrown versus dropped versus rolled.🥸 Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed. I don't see any evidence supporting notability of this specific subgroup. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of rampage killers. Even the title looks strange. Azuredivay (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2022 (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!} 18:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marla Boehr[edit]

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

I could not find independent and substantive coverage about Boehr, just model directories and bare passing mentions. Reywas92^Talk 16:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also went through Canadian newspapers at Newspapers.com (admittedly not the best source for Canadian newspapers) and found nothing. But for a relatively young model from an English-speaking country you'd expect sources online to demonstrate notability. Ovinus (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She bakes pies now [15]. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2022 (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. And move to Death of Hadis Najafi. Consensus is that while she was not notable while she was alive, her death and the reactions to it are a notable event with plentiful coverage in reliable sources. Sandstein 05:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hadis Najafi[edit]

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

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}}.

Definitely cannot stay under current title as she isn't notable on her own per WP:BLP1E. Only a burst of sources related after her death, which also wouldn't meet WP:NEVENT. Should be redirected to Mahsa Amini protests#Casualties. ~Styyx^Talk? 16:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you refer to WP:BLP1E, which is a shortcut (or redirects) to Wikipedia:Biographies of living person WP:BLP. The subject is not a living person and so WP:BLP not does apply here. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not have a page dedicated to the assessment for notability or treatment of notable deaths. Hence, we have to rely on WP:NBIO (Wikipedia:Notability (people)) and WP:N(E) (Wikipedia:Notability (events)). There is nothing in the WP guidelines that asserts that for notability a person has to be notable while alive. If they die a notable death, then that is one way that they become notable, albeit after they die. So what is a notable death? I suggest a notable death is a death that stands out in some way from most of the roughly one hundred million human deaths that take place every year. For example, if a person is murdered by state actors, resulting in street protests or protests on social media, then the person's death becomes notable and the person by their notable death becomes notable. If a murderous state murders many victims, resulting in nationwide protests, then which death, if any, is a notable death? I don't think there is a simple answer to that. Which is why I think we need a Wikipedia page dedicated to the assessment of notable deaths. 82.15.254.27 (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Iran. ~Styyx^Talk? 16:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you argument that she became famous after her death, this is fully true; before that event she was not famous. You can apply your logic to approximately all famous people with an article in Wikipedia. They were not initially famous but they became famous after a specific time. For example most of the famous people like presidents of states, actors, serial killers, celebrities, ... Savalanni (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

so she isn't notable then. Dying isn't famous. We need reliable sources covering her life, not talking about her death. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good reason that you have not read the references. They are full of description of her live, before and after her death. She was very active in many social portals so that hundreds of multimedia records belonging to her are being analyzed daily. Many TV programs with many invited guests are aired to discuss her symbolic character, ... . Please do not simply write about her knowing nothing about her. Savalanni (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hadis Najafi is a symbol and icon of a nation in 2022 Iran protests and definitely will remain so after that for years, please refer to international media like: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. Her twitter hasgtags like #HadisNajafi and حدیث_نجفی# are used tens of millions time. She is a national and international icon and symbol. She deserves to have an article in Wikipedia and should have one. Please keep it and help. Savalanni (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, all sources are about the exact same thing. BLP1E applies. ~Styyx^Talk? 16:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read carefully these sources together with the sources cited in the article itself. It is far more than exact same thing! And what about the millions and millions of tweets? Savalanni (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable, appears another death in an authoritarian regime. Will likely happen again, as sad as that is, it's almost routine. Oaktree b (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are many deaths but few symbols and icons. She is one of the two symbols besides Mahsa Amini. Please do not speak such lowly about the death of human, and please never wish that such deaths will happen again. It seems to be a little bit too brutal Savalanni (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep There are enough sources to prove her reputation. PARSA (TALK) 19:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources about her death, yes. And how exactlt does this bypass BLP1E, Parsa 2au? ~Styyx^Talk? 20:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note the vote canvassing done here. ~Styyx^Talk? 20:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC) [reply]

She is not only famous for one event, namely her death, but for a chain of events, thus BLP1E can not be applied. She became an icon and symbol of millions of people. Please study her case carefully and then write your opinions. Savalanni (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources are because of her death, that's the whole idea of BLP1E. ~Styyx^Talk? 20:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not fully true. As I have written before, a chain of multidimensional events are happening around her death. She is an icon and symbol. It seems you have not deeply researched her case; A complex political and social game inside and outside of Iran is happening about her case.Savalanni (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase this for you: if she hadn't died (i.e. a single event) none of this would've existed. ~Styyx^Talk? 20:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but poor argumentation. Every reputation and fame begins with one event and then a chain of events follow. Here we see the same pattern. I can give you thousands of examples for this. I think you have not correctly understood the BLP1E. Savalanni (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK bud, you know it better. XD The difference is, it begins with one, and then those people have an established carreer or something in the years coming, and then they get to be known for more than one thing. It has been a week since she was killed. Apart from her death, she is a normal, routine, Iranian girl. She is known for a single thing, and that's it. ~Styyx^Talk? 08:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, but I am not bud, please call me Savalanni! It seems to be more polite. As I have written before, chain of events are following the first event. She became the symbol and icon of a nation and beyond it. She is now a champion of people's. Millions of people are speaking, writing about her (including us here in Wikipedia!). Tens of millions of tweets, hashtags, ... are created about her and are increasingly continuing. Please do not limit her only to her death. Many died and are dying in the protests, but only one of them became the icon. Savalanni (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then we can redirect the article to the protests, it's her death that's notable, not the life before it. We don't need a biography for every person involved, that we wouldn't have otherwise. Had she not died, she wouldn't get an article is the point. Oaktree b (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Savalanni has been doing some vote canvassing on other projects by going to the talk pages of some users and asking them to "vote keep": 3 on fawiki and 3 on azbwiki. I've added a {{Not a ballot}} template on top of the page. ~Styyx^Talk? 20:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, we must all remain positivist, I have just informed them that such discussion is going on here. Nothing about canvassing or somthing like that. We must all remain fair. They are free to write positively or negatively, I do not force them! Savalanni (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"In the English wiki [1], they want to remove the article [2] related to Najafi's hadith with a poll. Can you please prevent the removal of the article by posting your positive opinion there to save the article? Thank you very much in advance for your help" is what the message translates to, so I don't think you have any ground to continue arguing about this. ~Styyx^Talk? 20:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is just an invitation to participate, nothing more. The automatic translation has not translated fully true, the soul of meaning in English and Persian are different. I do not know the people, they may be pro or contra, it is 50% to 50%. They may appose or support, I can not know it. As I have written, we should all remain positivist.Savalanni (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it, please. You instruct them to write "keep" with four tildes even if they don't know English. No need to machine translation at all. Everyone can read the English word "keep" in the diff I provided. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes, in this particular case you are right, I should have not written that (It happened because I did not know the rules about canvassing). But fortunately the user has not written anything here. Savalanni (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please note that this discussion has been advertised on Persian Wikipedia. Please strike the votes by nonregulars. She is just a victim without any agency and does not deserve her own entry in an encyclopedia. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true, she is not a regular victim of the protests. She became an icon and symol of the protests with millions of hashtags, huge fame in mass media, .... . Please also do not repeat groundless assertions of the user Styyx about my informing others about the ongoing discussion with naming it as canvassing. Your sudden appearance here is also a little bit suspicious, it seems to be like the result of an off-wiki canvassing of Styyx or may be not, who knows. Because it is your first edit in Wikipedia after two days off; Furthermore your behavioral resemblances to the user Styyx (both interested in Turkish related articles and both with non-mother-tongue English, both claiming canvassing, similar edits, similar English writing style, ...) are a little bit suspicious. Savalanni (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the links for your canvassing at fawiki: [48][49][50][51][52][53]admins' board. You even asked them to vote keep[54]. I am a native speaker of Persian with over 70K edits at fawiki and the admin bit on Commons.

To enwiki admins who may not know what is happening in Iran now: The symbol of the ongoing protests in Iran is a Kurdish girl named Mahsa Amini. Some Turkic speakers in Iran (Azerbaijani people) try to make another symbol, a Turk this time. They claim Hadis Najafi is ethnically a Turk (which may be true, I don't know and I don't care). You may know that the relation between Turkic people and Kurdish people has been problematic for a long time, both in Turkey and Iran. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you didn't canvass? That's even worse if someone else is doing it for you. I'd say we should likely strike all the canvassed votes then. Oaktree b (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4nn1l2 I think you are the first one to look to the protects and its symbols from this point of view. But I have listed many international mass media that have freely written about the protects and the symbols of the protests. The protests are not about and not related to any ethnic groups and their rights in Iran. It is about women right. Please do not mix and confuse and please do not reduce the protests in Iran to an ethnic conflict. If anybody searches the internet, he or she will immediately understand the motives of the protests in Iran Savalanni (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just deleted a copyvio of Hadis Najafi with a gigantic flag of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Commons and I blocked the user for a month too: c:File:Hadis Najafi.jpg [55]. The immediate creation of this entry on azwiki (the Republic of Azerbaijan), azbwiki (the Iranian Azerbaijan), and trwiki (Turkey) speaks for itself. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting to be easy to decide, copyvios, argument over what is or isn't canvassing. Ref bombing in the AfD discussion. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User Styyx seems to be doing some sort of off-wiki canvassing in order to gather votes to delete this article. User 4nn1l2 seems to be canvassed (please see my comments and argumentations below its vote). Or may be the user 4nn1l2 is Styyx himself (as his sock puppet). I ask the administrators to check these facts.Savalanni (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, suggest revisiting in six months. It's not clear whether this will pass WP:NEVENT because it hasn't been long enough to know whether it will be part of the "enduring historical record". If we get a couple sources reanalyzing the event in a few months—especially after widespread protests have ended—then it will be enough. Perhaps fawiki has a lower threshold for event notability, but the sheer amount of international coverage (showing significance outside of Iran) presented by Savalinni indicates this event may ultimately prove notable in the sense of NEVENT. It's different from, say, a random kidnapping in the US which receives negligible international attention; that falls squarely under WP:NOTNEWS. Ovinus (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Canvassing for votes tells us how non-notable this is. A notable article can stand on its own. Could even redirect to the Mahsa Amin article (and I've probably messed up the spelling of her name too). Still prefer deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussed canvassing here is about trying to delete the article, not to keep it. Hadis Najafi's article is far more famous than to be deleted in Wikipedia. Just the fact of millions of Hashtags about her is an undoubtable reason for her notability. Millions of people in Iran and outside of it are speaking about her. Thousands of articles about her is existing. International mass media is reporting steadily about the events about her life, her death, her family, her role in protests, her leading role in protests, ... .Savalanni (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we need notable sources to prove this, and we have none. We have no need to discuss who said what at this point. Being notable in the world and having reliable sources upon which to create an article on wiki different things. Hashtags aren't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: please see as an example of many sources the following source: https://news.sky.com/story/we-want-everyone-to-know-her-name-hadis-najafi-the-23-year-old-tiktoker-shot-dead-in-iran-protests-12706404?curator=upstract.com. There are hundreds of such sources describing her as the icon of a nation and a generation.Savalanni (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've voted, and take a dim view on canvassing. We're here to discuss notability on wikipedia, not to game the system. Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion being canvassed has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Najafi is notable. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Mahsa_Amini_protests#Casualties, where she is already mentioned in a table listing casualties; could add the most significant sources to the "Details" column there, but this is basically BLP1E - unless we get sources showing that she is still being written about in a few months' time so has lasting encyclopedic significance (in which case we can revert to this article). PamD 07:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ah, interesting: She is no longer mentioned by name in the current version (as I type) of Mahsa Amini protests, as all names of casualties have been removed with edit summary "the naming of non-notable casualties requires talk page consensus". I see also that Karaj is not mentioned at Mahsa_Amini_protests#21_September, only in the 25 Sept section, although Najafi died on 21st. PamD 22:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Updated !vote): Move to Death of Hadis Najafi: Seems to be enough international coverage. PamD 07:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would have been easier to discuss this article thoroughly if its creator and supporters had formatted the references properly so that readers and other editors can see what the sources are, beyond simple titles - eg whether they are blogs or major news publications - without having to click on them. PamD 08:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't understand why so many people think it should be deleted. There's quite obviously an encyclopedia article here: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/video-taken-context-made-hadis-170833628.html https://www.newsweek.com/young-iranian-woman-symbol-protests-viral-video-killed-hadis-najafi-1746075 https://news.sky.com/story/we-want-everyone-to-know-her-name-hadis-najafi-the-23-year-old-tiktoker-shot-dead-in-iran-protests-12706404?curator=upstract.com https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-718166 https://iranwire.com/en/women/107894-hadis-najafi-20-becomes-a-new-symbol-of-defiance-in-iran/--Gazozlu (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because she is only known for dying. ~Styyx^Talk? 08:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's delete Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, that topic is also only for dying. Gazozlu (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, because first, that's a textbook "What about X?" argument and second, that event isn't routine. A king/queen of a major country dying after many years doesn't happen often and will have lasting coverage; in a stupid regime like this, these deaths, how unfortunate it is, happen lot. ~Styyx^Talk? 11:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But not this specific killing. This specific death is not routine, it wasn't expected that she specifically would be killed. The death of the Queen Elizabeth and the death of Hadis Najafi have both received enough coverage that an article can be written about it. Also, we should not that the coverage isn't only about her death in of its self but, similar to the Queens death, what that death means in a larger context, the symbolism of the death, the reprecussions and events that follow because of it etc. Gazozlu (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was the death of a notable individual at that point. this young lady was nowhere near the level the queen was when she died. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hadis Najafi is a symbol of protests and millions of people across the world speaking about her. Her mass media coverage is comparable with that of the death of Elizabeth II. I think Hadis has more tweets and hashtags now than Elizabeth II.Savalanni (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've said that many times, but why is she important is the question. Simply telling us so isn't helping. What has she accomplished? What's been discussed at length in reliable sources, unrelated to her? Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You asked this question many times at this discussion, I have answered to it many times. Please start a new question, please do not repeat the already answered questions.Savalanni (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please show us notable sources that discuss her at length that show GNG has been met? The ones we have aren't quite there yet. Oaktree b (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems that almost no one here actually looks at the policy WP:BLP1E. Criterion 1 is clearly met, but criterion 3 is clearly not: 3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. Her role is clearly substantial and also fairly well-documented. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But significance is "indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources", so it's too soon to say. That's why I suggested redirecting for now, with an option to reinstate the article if, in a few weeks or months time, she is still getting coverage. PamD 16:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The information about her is too much, no place in that pages table of causality to write and fit them all. Why not keep it with the option to check it later if your mentioned criterion is met or is not met anymore? Savalanni (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can't keep this parked for that long. If it's still notable then, it can always be recreated. Why not just write about her in the protest article, she seems to be heavily related to them? Take away the protests, and she isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your question is simple: because there are many sources and many information about her. I ask a question: why there is an article about the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II? Why it should not be merged in Elizabeth II article page? Or better asked: why we need at all an article about Elizabeth II herself. It can be merged simply in the article about Monarchy of the United Kingdom Savalanni (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every single source I've seen that discusses the protests also discusses her. I don't know how much more significant you want her role to be. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I searched in google and I found lots of media covering Hadis Najafi’s death and her becoming a symbol beside Mahsa Amini. NMasiha (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please share some sources, that is what we're trying to discuss here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

please refer to more than 50 reliable sources cited in this discussion and in the article page itself. As an example please see this one: https://news.sky.com/story/we-want-everyone-to-know-her-name-hadis-najafi-the-23-year-old-tiktoker-shot-dead-in-iran-protests-12706404 Savalanni (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)curator=upstract.com[reply]

And that's the only source I can find, she doesn't meet GNG then. Oaktree b (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename per WP:BLP1E - There appears to be too much information available for the proposed redirect to be feasible, and the Death of Hadis Najafi does not appear to be "routine", per the sources. Per WP:EVENT, there appears to be a well-documented WP:EFFECT, including but not limited to the international coverage, per WP:GEOSCOPE. Per WP:EFFECT, It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. There also appears to be WP:INDEPTH coverage in WP:DIVERSE sources. Per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable. Per WP:RAPID, it seems better for now to allow this article to develop into an event article. Beccaynr (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Example sources: Iran protests: 20yo, Hadis Najafi’s brave stand before violent death (News.com.au, Sept. 26, 2022), Hadis Najafi killed in Iran protests, becomes new symbol of defiance (Jerusalem Post, Sept. 26), How a video taken out of context made Hadis Najafi a symbol of repression in Iran (France24, Sept. 27), Iranian TikToker Hadis Najafi, 23, 'shot dead' during demonstrations in Karaj (ITV, Sept. 30), 'We want everyone to know her name': TikToker Hadis Najafi, 23, shot dead in Iran protests (Sky News, Sept. 30). Beccaynr (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these (for example Jpost or France24) are bad sources and subject to disinformation or misinformation unfortunately. There may have been a deliberate campaign to confuse people and create a new (Turk) symbol. Many news websites removed their false news about her, but some did not. The gist of the "disinformation campaign" can be read here (BBC tweet). Again, she is just a normal victim like many others and does not deserve special attention. The only person who deserves special attention in these protests is Mahsa Amini herslef whose death sparked the protests. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources do not imply that there is a disinformation campaign as you are suggesting. Gazozlu (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The current version of the Wikipedia article itself discusses the disinformation about her extensively: en:Special:Permalink/1113422180#Disinformation_related_to_Hadis_Najafi_and_her_death. I prefer that Wikipedia stay away from disinformation and not become Victimpedia. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It it is talked about by a reliable source(s) then it can be part of the wikipedia article, but i don't think the existence of alleged disinformation is a reason for deletion of the article about the topic where the disinformation may have taken place. Gazozlu (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the only thing a reliable source, such as France24, says about a dead person is about the disinformation and misinformation around her name, then I believe that source should not be considered as an evidence of notability for the victim. At first, the subject of the article should be proved to be notable, and then, if proven, this news piece can be used to expand the article too.

If a source such as the Jerusalem Post uses proven false information in its reporting and does not care to rectify its content, then that source should not be considered as an evidence of notability for the subject of the article. That source should not be taken serious at all.

That's all I want to say. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based on my experience working on articles such as Killing of Amir Locke, and the Olga Sukhenko AfD, I am familiar with ways to incorporate early news that may be widely-reported and then later corrected, but I am less familiar with arguments such as "Nothing notable, appears another death in an authoritarian regime. Will likely happen again, as sad as that is, it's almost routine." The WP:EVENT guideline includes an overview of WP:ROUTINE coverage, and this death does not appear to be run-of-the-mill, based on the coverage that goes beyond the initial mistaken video, includes questions about the circumstances of her death, the promise of an ongoing investigation, allegations of live gunfire being used on protesters, and debunking misinformation (Sky news), (France 24, "Although she was not the woman in the ponytail video, Hadis Najafi was indeed killed at a protest."). In the example sources I list above, I am particularly interested in sources that acknowledge the initial mistaken video and nevertheless continue to report on Najafi (e.g. ITV), and the reports on the social media response also seem to support the notability of the event (e.g. news.com.au). The JPost also reports on a range of social media responses, including posts by family and friends. Reuters reports on Sept. 25: Iran protests Western stance on mass protests over woman's death, "Details of casualties have trickled out slowly, partly because of the restrictions on communication" before including brief coverage of the death of Najafi and what we now know is a mistakenly-attributed video. I think the article can be revised to more clearly reflect the notability of the event, based on available sources that discuss more than misinformation (about the ponytail video and whether she is still alive), even though these aspects are also part of this event. Beccaynr (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, e.g. Insider on Sept 30, A 20-year-old TikToker killed while protesting for women's rights has become a symbol of Iran's resistance e.g. "The online reactions to Amini and Najafi's deaths and the ongoing demonstrations has been intense, even amid a widespread internet blackout in Iran" [...] "In an echo of the uproar over Amini's killing, Najafi has now also become a rallying point for protesters" [...] "Najafi's name has become a popular hashtag to spread word of protests and call for change" and there is commentary quoted about why the mistakenly-attributed ponytail video "spoke to many Iranians." Beccaynr (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have enough sources to write an article, and we'd be doing our readers a service by distinguishing what is disinformation (or just sloppy reporting) from what is solid. Whether we title the article Hadis Najafi or Death of Hadis Najafi is bikeshedding that depends upon sub-condition 3(b) of WP:SOMEDAMNACRONYM; we don't need to resolve that here. XOR'easter (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pure history in the making. Its what Wikipedia is for. scope_creep^Talk 10:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she is notable for her death but there seem to be several other figures like this on Wikipedia; quite wide coverage in international media and her name being invoked at foreign events and in foreign politics seems quite significant. The article as it is right now is not optimal in terms of the writing, sourcing or source formatting but that seems like it could easily be ironed out. Beodizia (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Just made an attempt at ironing this out myself. Beodizia (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I also support moving to Death of Hadis Najafi for consistency with Death of Mahsa Amini and Death of Nika Shakarami. Beodizia (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply because she was not notable before her death (per WP:BLP1E). It can be moved to a page on her death though. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So basically keep and move, not delete. Delete means the article will be removed completely.-- Ideophagous (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BBC Radio 4 Today, as I type, is discussing another young woman as a significant death following that of Mahsa Amini - can't quite catch the name but something like Nika Shakterami... - went to a demo, disappeared for 10 days, body produced by police alleging she fell off a building. No mention of Hadis Najafi. PamD 07:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now found in The Guardian PamD 07:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we have her covered already: Death of Nika Shakarami. PamD 07:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and Move to an article about her death. We already have Killing of Neda Agha-Soltan as one precedent. There are a lot of others, such as Killing of Trayvon Martin or Murder of George Floyd. Wikipedia has categories full of people who whose notability hinges on the circumstances of their death. — Maile (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move, per above comment by Maile66.--Ideophagous (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to Death of Hadis Najafi. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:NEVENT. WP:BLP1E is not applicable to this article under any circumstances. The subject would have to be living for that policy to apply. She's dead, so it doesn't. Period.4meter4 (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E also applies to those who have recently died, and I was citing the policy in support of a move to an event article titled Death of Hadis Najafi, although it does seem superfluous, now that you mention it. Beccaynr (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2022 (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. Also CSD G5. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SB Stars statistics[edit]

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

Premature to have a separate list of statistics for this team which has played all of 14 games so far. Fails WP:NOTSTATS, is completely unsourced, and lacks notability. Fram (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, Lists, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. At this point, it's essentially just a list of the team's 2021 team leaders. Cbl62 (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's WP:TOOSOON for anything like this. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to FCF Shoulda Been Stars, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2022 (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. Also CSD G5. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of SB Stars starting quarterbacks[edit]

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

Seems hugely premature to have statistics page for a team which has played all of 14 games so far. Fram (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, Lists, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per failure to satisfy WP:NLIST. Cbl62 (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NLIST.Hey man im josh (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and NLIST. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to FCF Shoulda Been Stars, per all above. Fails WP:NLIST. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2022 (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 23:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sushmit Mukherjee[edit]

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

As per WP:GNG any article should have significant and in-depth coverages from reliable sources. But this article doesn't have a single source which is significant, in-depth and reliable. All the news about the article are announcement of his new project. So the article doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Aniaug (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Aniaug (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find a few things, but there's nothing substantial. --Bigneeerman (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added published interview of the person on a Newspaper and on Youtube channel of a news portal. Tuhinmwiki (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added published interview of the person on a Newspaper and on Youtube channel of a news portal. Tuhinmwiki (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added interview of Sushmit Mukherjee published on newsportal and youtube link. Tuhinmwiki (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This times of india coverage is significant coverage in a reliable source. This plausibly is significant coverage but requires translation by a begali speaking editor. I suspect there is probably more coverage in bengali sources. W 42 17:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's barely two paragraphs, reliable source, yes. Not substantial though and not enough to build any kind of article on. Oaktree b (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: the nominator is a blocked sock of DasSoumik. W 42 17:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more socks, oh boy. Non-notable interview and a youtube video, do not a wikipedia article make. Oaktree b (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree. Skyerise (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2022 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mateusz Grzesiak[edit]

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

Extremly padded article for a likely non-notable person. His biography has been deleted from Polish Wikipedia several times, and recreated again and again, usually by WP:SPA (their edits can be also seen in the history of our article). It is likely to be removed again (ongoing discussion: pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2022:09:25:Mateusz Grzesiak). The only thing we can say is that he is an author of a dozen+ books in Polish (self-help books and similar), neither of which appears notable (won awards, generated media attention, etc). So he fails WP:NAUTHOR and overall, WP:NBIO. (He is described as a scholar, but fails WP:NPROF). Given the persistent recreations in Polish Wikipedia, I strongly suggest this is pre-emptively WP:SALTed if deleted. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Literature, and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more ref stacking. Seems rather flowery language also. Oaktree b (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBIO. I support the nominator's request to SALT, definitely seems like promotional work here. W 42 16:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article require some editions, but it should not be deleted. Elizabeth Oignon (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC) — Elizabeth Oignon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Considering the fact that the following article went through various editions it shall not be removed. Rafsty (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2022 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AMi Exploration Program[edit]

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

Lacks all notability so far. Sources are not independent, looking for better sources only produces pr pieces, articles reads more like a sales pitch for the cryptocurrency "tokens". Fram (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Technology, and Romania. Fram (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No hits on scholar and incorrect hits on books. The only news source is a PR release, and just promotional stuff on Google. Fails WP:GNG for a lack of independent, reliable sourcing. ‡ Night Watch ω (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "What is AMI?" This isn't a sales brochure. AMI is deleted. Non-notable and no sources found. Even the press-releases used are too flowery. Oaktree b (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to say Merge to ARCAspace, but the relevant content is already there. Would not be surprised if this becomes notable in the future though. W 42 14:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From what I can find, no significant coverage from secondary/independent sources. Uhai (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2022 (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sungodtemple (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Scholarship Portal[edit]

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

The National Scholarship Portal itself appears to be notable by WP:WEB, with reasonable news coverage, but this article is actually a list of scholarships offered by central and state governments, and how-to information. It's mostly referenced by the commercial website "buddy4study.com", and to some extent the government website Vikaspedia, and it's larded with inline external links. No doubt this could be useful to students, and the article could be renamed, but it's not an encyclopaedia article, and Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY. Storchy (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Websites, and India. Storchy (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The portal does seem to be notable per WP:WEB and WP:GNG. The launch of the mobile app in particular seems to have generated a lot of coverage [56] [57]. While looking for sources for this article is moderately difficult due to a million "how to apply for NSP scholarship" articles, there definitely is significant coverage in reliable sources for the portal. W 42 15:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator seems to concede that the topic is notable, and that only the content is the problem. That can be fixed and doesn't warrant deletion. If necessary, it can be draftified to allow for it to be fixed, but deletion is not necessary. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. You're both right. Sorry. I should have simply tried to clean it up. Storchy (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2022 (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 under G11. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 13:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SuparStar Abhishek kumar[edit]

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

The editor promotes himself Xx236 (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and India. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 29 September 2022 (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!} 08:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Kunitsyn[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.amazon.com/Emergence-Russian-Liberalism-Alexander-Intellectual/dp/0230111734 The Emergence of Russian Liberalism: Alexander Kunitsyn in Context, 1783-1840 (Palgrave Studies in Cultural and Intellectual History) 2011th Edition

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4205611 A. P. Kunitsyn and the Social Movement in Russia under Alexander I

Probably plenty sources in Russian, here the two ones in English.Xx236 (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another English-language source: Berest, Julia (2021). "Aleksandr Kunitsyn: Pioneer of natural law in Russia". In Valliere, Paul; Poole, Randall (eds.). Law and the Christian Tradition in Modern Russia. Routledge. pp. 92–112. doi:10.4324/9781003017097-5. There appear to be plenty of Russian sources. Hard-to-explain AfD; was any external searching for sources performed, as required by WP:BEFORE? —David Eppstein (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also puzzled as to how we ended up here. A google search immediately leads to many sources in English. He has an entry in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Jahaza (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tons of sources demonstrating notability. The journal article provided by xx236 states that the subject is "familiar to all readers of Pushkin" and goes on to cover him in detail. [58] W 42 16:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Encyclopedic topics of 20-page journal articles are prima facie notable. Ovinus (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm seeing a lot of comments about keeping this article and I agree that they could pass WP:GNG but I'm not seeing what the subject of the article has done to pass WP:NBIO. I read some of the chapters from Julia Berest book and all I could really gather from it was that Alexander Kunitsyn's grand accomplishment was taking the works of Kant and bringing them to Russia then he was a professor. Does this article pass WP:GNG, probably it's got two sources. Does this pass WP:SNG? No, he's not notable as per WP:NBIO or WP:NPROF. He fails WP:NBIO in that his work is not a widely recognized contribution to the field, people don't cite Kunitsyn they cite Kant. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 02:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have a serious misunderstanding of Wikipedia notability, problematic for someone creating so many AfDs. With rare exceptions (WP:PROF is one, but not one that is relevant here; it is geared towards modern research university professors) Wikipedia notability is not about accomplishments but about sourcing. We have here one English book, two journal articles, and many Russian sources. Is there more than one of them? Are they in-depth? If so you should not be asking what he has done to deserve the attention. The attention itself is what is relevant. If you want Wikipedia notability to be based on accomplishments rather than publicity, I am quite sympathetic to that view, but this sort of individual AfD is not the way. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
O no I understand notability perfectly fine. What I don't trust is the Russian sources and the claims they make about this guy. If you remove them he barely passes WP:GNG. We're going to end up keeping this article and that's fine that's how consensus works.

No you Kant: Russians reject German thinker's name for airport

You name it, the Russians invented it Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Several encyclopedia entries and coverage in other sources (many of which are easily available) appear to get this over WP:GNG. As stated above, WP:NPROF is generally intended for more modern professors. Curbon7 (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: undoubtedly notable person. --Gazal world (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just looking at the three in-depth refs provided by Xx236 and Winner 42, WP:GNG is met. Further, they meet the basic criteria of WP:NBIO, People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. What I don't trust is the Russian sources and the claims they make about this guy.- sources in Russia definitely fall under a reliability spectrum. For example, per WP:RSP, Kommersant is generally reliable whereas TASS is generally unreliable. Russia media definitely has various issues, see Internet censorship in Russia, however, the refs are from reliable scholarly journals, thus meeting WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC. VickKiang (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2022 (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!} 08:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cesur Durak[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Blocked UPE. Promo. Man doing his job. scope_creep^Talk 07:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a promo article, couldn't find any solid sources online. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Turkey. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The Turkish sources in the article are all from non-RS publications and are mostly promotional, which gives me no reason to believe that the Romainian sources are different. Has won a non-notable award; no sign of meeting the GNG or NBIO. ~Styyx^Talk? 14:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete good amount of tabloid coverage, but nothing substantial in reliable sources that I could find. W 42 16:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete will agree with above, tabloids are not acceptable. Oaktree b (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

if you search from google you can find so many articles from Romanian national press that did't put as a link in wikipedia page yet.As it is known, other small or online news sites report the news made by the national media by quoting,As it mentions in discussion about turkish news you can see main news in Romanian national press.cesur durak wikipedia page made an english but 90% news are in Romanian so have to put more reference links from romanian not to delete.you can find articles below just a a few of them https://celebritatea.ro/cesur-durak-a-primit-premiul-pentru-best-detox-specialist-medical-tourism-consultant-la-gala-i-success-awards-cannes-edition/ https://www.wowbiz.ro/cesur-durak-recunoscut-la-nivel-global-pentru-sfaturile-de-detoxifiere-a-fost-premiat-la-cannes-a-fost-un-lucru-foarte-important-pentru-mine-20159416 https://www.wowbiz.ro/reteta-minune-a-lui-cesur-durak-pentru-un-colon-sanatos-si-un-sistem-imunitar-intarit-ce-contine-fresh-ul-care-te-scapa-de-durerile-de-colon-20173292 https://www.kanald.ro/teoshow/cesur-durak-a-descoperit-sucul-minune-pentru-sanatate-invitat-la-teo-show-ne-dezvaluie-reteta-18831306 https://www.wowbiz.ro/specialistul-in-nutritie-si-detox-cesur-durak-prepara-bautura-care-arde-grasimile-20056544 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihcm (talk • contribs) 20:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two winning a corporate award and being on the show to talk about it. The 2nd is a blog article. All of them are primary and PR. scope_creep^Talk 20:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is so many sources posted on the talk page of the article. However the majority of them are Romanian sites which I can't judge. However, after that post above, I came across his appearances on Kanal D. He has appeared on Kanal D multiple times over a span of several years. Several diffrent shows and in at least one news segment. Kanal D I am familiar with, it is a very big channel in Turkey and internationally, and its branch in Romania is quite significant. --Gazozlu (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appearing on a show isn't notable, we need article that talk about him, that are substantial and unrelated to him. Paying him to be on a TV show isn't notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
if you reel search all the articles about him and watches tv programs that mainly he is invited to talk about healthy life style as a detox specialist i will just put some links because i can not put hundreds of links [59]https://www.stirilekanald.ro/cesur-durak-despre-vacanta-detox-din-bodrum-20200704 [60]https://www.wowbiz.ro/reteta-minune-a-lui-cesur-durak-pentru-un-colon-sanatos-si-un-sistem-imunitar-intarit-ce-contine-fresh-ul-care-te-scapa-de-durerile-de-colon-20173292 [61]https://www.wowbiz.ro/specialistul-in-nutritie-si-detox-cesur-durak-prepara-bautura-care-arde-grasimile-20056544 [62]https://www.wowbiz.ro/reteta-minune-a-lui-cesur-durak-care-inlocuieste-cu-succes-antibioticele-de-ce-ingrediente-ai-nevoie-pentru-a-obtine-un-cocktail-natural-cu-proprietati-antiinflamatorii-20181656 [63]https://www.wowbiz.ro/reteta-minune-a-lui-cesur-durak-care-inlocuieste-cu-succes-antibioticele-de-ce-ingrediente-ai-nevoie-pentru-a-obtine-un-cocktail-natural-cu-proprietati-antiinflamatorii-20181656 Ihcm (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can be notable depending on if they are a significant part of the program that they appear in. We are not talking about A TV show here. We're talking about stuff like being the feature guest on this womans show on national television, being the main guest on a show called the Teo Show on national television several times in 2019 and several in 2021 such as this example, being brought on as a contributor on a news segment on national TV. These are all on Kanal D. Then theres several features on the channel Prima TV such as this example. Being featured on shows goes back to even 2014 like this example on StarsDirect. I am not familiar with Prima TV and Stars, but Kanal D I do know, and it is big. I'm not saying this guy is doing anything useful for society, but he does appear to be, undeniably, notable in Romania. Gazozlu (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep except the so many sources posted on the talk page of article there is more article in google Romania search didn't put yet and also if you visit youtube there is so many tv programs that he invited are the biggest National tv channel of Romania. Also last year He was invited to the L.A premiere of Love on the Rock movie. By his friend Kira Katherine Reed also known as Kira Reed Lorsch, is an American actress, emmy winner, television host, writer, and producer https://www.wowbiz.ro/exclusiv-specialistul-in-nutritie-cesur-durak-invitat-special-de-actrita-kira-reed-la-ziua-sa-de-nastere-in-los-angeles-m-a-invitat-la-premiera-filmului-ei-love-on-the-rock-movie-si-la-petrecere-20174744 https://www.wowbiz.ro/cesur-durak-renumitul-specialist-in-nutritie-invitatul-special-al-celebrei-actrite-kira-reed-am-vorbit-tuturor-despre-romania-pentru-ca-eu-locuiesc-aici-20177872 https://www.alamy.com/universal-city-ca-october-13-2021-cesur-durak-attends-pinnacle-peak-pictures-premiere-film-love-on-the-rock-at-universal-city-hilton-universal-city-ca-on-october-13-2021-image447960136.html if you realy search you can find so many news in google about him if you don't have prejudices or personal problems — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihcm (talk • contribs) 22:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Same style of refs above, except similiar to IMDB listing sites. One of the same ref. Primary. Not a single secondary source amongst it. Its all him. Its a complete PUFF piece ref list. scope_creep^Talk 22:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a puff piece, area ripe for promotion. It would be nice to have someone who speaks Romanian to evaluate the sources more adeptly, but meh. Ovinus (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but if you don't care about the news of Romania's national TV channels and national print media, if you don't know Romanian or if you don't read or translate in English, if you ignore hundreds of news links and TV programs and call them promotions, there's nothing to tell you, but you need to respect those who live in Romania and are well-known.i am sure soon this page will translate to romanian languages as well and i find one link also when he attend International Health Congress. The Turkish national and the Romanian Detox specialist Cesur Durak visited Baku to attend the International Health Congress. [64]https://ednews.net/en/news/society/400354-baku-hosted-international-health-congress Ihcm (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I respect Romanian media, like that of any free country. But it’s difficult for me to evaluate Romanian sources for relevance and quality. You are welcome (and encouraged) to summarize some of the sources in English to help the rest of us. Ovinus (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1 the above. Though again, considering the Turkish sources are absolute shit, I doubt the Romanian ones are any different, so you need to be very good at convincing. ~Styyx^Talk? 11:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This ref here is an event listing, where the detox specialist Durak is invited to the conference. It is primary again. They are all primary. The Youtube ref above has 177 views. It is non-notable. The 2nd one has 8k views and he is on the teo show making a concotion on the Teo show as guest.The 3rd Youtube vlog is a note with 4k views stating his clinic has opened. It is primary. The 4th is him on the Stars Direct. It has 600 views and is primary. There is not a single secondary source been presented that proves he is notable. It all from the detox clinic. scope_creep^Talk 10:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing the point here by focusing on the view count of an archived recordings of programs that have appeared on air on national TV. Gazozlu (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOT DELETE BECAUSE if we go this mantalty mr/mrs ~Styyx we will make mistake because there is so many wikipedia page about romanian people and referenca are from same Romanian media in this way all the english wikipedia pages will be complain from rest of the world country whom non-native English language.aND FOR MR/MRS . scope_creep none of the all videos watch millions the important think is where this video shoot and whic youtube chanell publish this so cesur durak offen is invited from one of the biggest Romanian national tv Kanal D progarms and the program presenter which is the one of the most popular [[65]] so i will leave some more links here that you can check this one watched all most 27K https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F4JQoMaJdo This one watched all most 27Khttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWpSCBROwsg this one watched all most 9K https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzbI2mBi45s and i am addeing some links so if you realy search about cesur durak with positive way as you can see there is a lot tv programs and news as he make a lot naturel recipes and health advices [[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbkMFFatL0E]] [[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2qDRDdvt0Q]] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUlWz7Bdhw8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8UZJsjXkDU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aevvRPpwBCo and also he was so many time at main news of the tv [[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCaX9YfBktI]] in this Tv program prima tv program presenter talks about his succes and also his so many puplic guest and friend that joined in his detox programs inculuding you can see princess Marina Sturdza Marina_Sturdza hand write letter in the screen to cesur durak [[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmjpJKYeK5Q]] so as you are seeing in this discussion I write not only my opinion and comment, but also what I have written by proving it with references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihcm (talk • contribs) 13:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC) COMENT Although there are so many national TV channels news about cesur durak here in discussion with so many references links in the written press, mr/ mrs ~StyyxT' says Turkish sources are absolute shit, I doubt the Romanian ones are any different This prejudiced and racist approach is unacceptable. it seems that who mr.mrs ~Styx doesn't read any reference link and just wants the page to be removed without putting any prejudiced information and reference this is so sad i am sure editors will check all the references links before to make decisions Ihcm (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provided aren't reliable and substantive coverage of the subject, per wiki guidelines. Let's keep this discussion civil folks. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like SPA's calling people racists in AfDs is the new trend? Whatever. I don't think anyone here cares about the YouTube links above, I've checked them and they are all his appearances in the exact same TV show. Appearing on TV is mentioned in no notability guideline so they are pretty much irrelevant. I've checked the Turkish sources in the article because I know Turkish, and came to the conclusion that they are all from unreliable vanity press sites that publish an article about you if you have some $$$ in hand, so yeah, these sources are shit. I don't know much about Romanian media, but common sense says that there is no reason to believe they are good when we consider the previous, especcialy when the sites are so insignificant to not even have an article on the Romanian Wikipedia. 80% of the sources are from a random website called Wowbiz (ro:Wowbiz, blue link but doesn't exist), which has a message at the very bottom on their website that says "If you want to write to us or if you want to make us a proposal, you can send your letter or message to one of the addresses below: [List of addresses]". Sorry, but we've seen enough paid editors to know what promotional sources are. ~Styyx^Talk? 16:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah so there are some sources but we have WP:NBIO for a reason. The man is selling snake oil and we're here fighting about if the sources are good enough. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mr/Mrs Dr vulpes there is not writing in this news about selling snake oil or snake etc that you put up The link ( https://evz.ro/reteta-pentru-detoxifierea-ficatului.html ) Translation of the news is ; Specialist Cesur Durak says that this liver detox drink should be consumed in two stages of 15 days, according to Drink parsley and lemon juice every morning, on an empty stomach, 30-45 minutes before breakfast, for 15 days. After a 7-day break, another 15-day cure is made, during which the liver detoxifying juice is consumed. Cesur Durak warnts that the program must be respected: 15 days of detoxification, 7 days of rest, another 15 days of detoxification. And also in the news mentions that this news is a quote from wowbiz. ro and this is orginal and main news link https://www.wowbiz.ro/bautura-minune-cu-patrunjel-si-zeama-de-lamaie-care-iti-detoxifiaza-ficatul-specialistul-in-detox-cesur-durak-iti-arata-cum-se-prepara-20003582 So its show also in your this comment you give wrong information and translations .I am sorry but that much wrong informations and translations you comment here make me thinks you or any of your friend has personal problem with mr cesur durakIhcm (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually correct; I tend to find undisclosed paid editing almost always problematic. And the fact that you are still giving us those junk sites again doesn't make anything better. ~Styyx^Talk? 14:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment information Some more translation and information from Romanian media about cesur durak with refecance links.so why we do not look as a realistic way to think this part also, the reason Mr cesur Durak is often in Kanal D tv chanell.Kanal D is one of the three biggest national television channels in Romania as a TV channel. and is also one of Turkey's biggest TV station and press groups. Kanal_D_(Romania) and wowbiz.ro was the biggest reality show in canal D Romania and also is canal d Romania online news paper site. As we know, many well-known and famous people have an exlusive agreement with some TV channels and only appear in programs on that TV channel due to the protocol and agreement on their subjects. except that as i put in my comments so many links also so many another news mention about him i will put some more links with some translation from the news. https://okmagazine.ro/vedete/news/claudia-pavel-a-pierdut-5-kg-intr-o-saptamana-544176.html Translation ; Cesur Durak have become a real phenomenon on the domestic market, and so far, many personalities have turned to him: Oana Turcu and her husband, Cristi Brancu, Mădălin Ionescu and Cristina Şişcanu, Mihaela Tatu, Ileana Badiu, Daniela Nane, Adrian Mutu, Cătălin Botezatu and many others. It seems that Cesur Durak will soon become as famous in the country as his countryman, Dr Oz dın Amerıca. if you check the names that in the news mentions are Romanian national and some of them international know people that have been and following Cesur Durak detox health programs you can find so many articles like this in Romanian media one more link and translations https://www.eva.ro/shopping/divertisment/claudia-pavel-a-slabit-cu-detox-in-turcia-articol-123677.html Translation ; It seems that Cesur Durak will soon become as famous in the country as his countryman, Dr Oz dın Amerıca. this one of article with cesur durak and well know footbal player Adrian Mutu https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Mutu while he was in his detox program https://www.wowbiz.ro/interviu-exclusiv-adrian-mutu-despre-vacanta-lui-in-turcia-e-liniste-si-pace-fostul-mare-fotbalist-si-sotia-lui-sandra-au-avut-parte-de-un-concediu-de-5-stele-alaturi-de-cesur-durak-specialist-in-programe-de-detoxifiere-16412325 well there is a lot news that shows soo many known public , politicions etc follows and joining his detox health program some more links from difrent news paper https://ziaruldebusiness.ro/cesur-durak-a-primit-premiul-pentru-best-detox-specialist-medical-tourism-consultant-la-gala-i-success-awards-cannes-edition/ https://celebritatea.ro/cesur-durak-a-primit-premiul-pentru-best-detox-specialist-medical-tourism-consultant-la-gala-i-success-awards-cannes-edition/ I think mr/mrs editors will see and check all this referance links puted i wish to every one great weekend and to be unbiased and researcher and of course to share the correct information and translation on the wikipedia platform without making any wrong translations.Ihcm (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summarising Comment - This conversation got really long and messy, but I think the underlying question that needs answering here is: Does apparent fame, celebrity, and prominent (TV)media presence = notability for wikipedia?--Gazozlu (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead of WP:N says: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity". Appearing on TV doesn't either; that would mean that every news anchor is automatically notable. No thanks. ~Styyx^Talk? 19:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read that as, "The person does not have to be famous or popular in order to be notable" for wikipedia. Gazozlu (talk) 11:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It goes both ways, so what you said is also correct. ~Styyx^Talk? 12:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning for why I do read it as being implied one way:

It says "does not necessarily depend on things such as fame." Using necessarily in this sentence implies that notability may depend on fame.

(There may be cases where notability depends on fame)

If the sentence said "does not depend on things such as fame." Only then it would go both ways because if it is written that way it says that a subjects notability is not connected to its fame. Gazozlu (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources are all unreliable sponcon junk. The 'award' he won is set up by a PR firm, apparently as a means of promoting their clients. - MrOllie (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As it exists on 2 October, most of the content in Career has nothing to do with any career, and the one award is so minor as to be useless to establish notability. David notMD (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Although at no point stated above, it is possible that User Ihcm is Cesur Durak. David notMD (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment InfoI think if the prize was paid ″just i put couple of them″ these well-known people i put links wouldn't get paid prizes there either and wouldn't be that much national and international news in press an Tv channels l like to help and inform every one here because of i live and know about romania [[66]] [67] [68] just some press links without Tv program links [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] There are online media that quote and report more news, but I didn't want to leave them all.Ihcm (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Name-dropping Wikilinked people that Durak has met or perhaps befriended does not add to his notability. David notMD (talk) 11:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment and Thanks Thank you Mr DavidnotMD for your usefull informations that you give me atTeahouse as i am very new in wikipedia to prove my self i wanted to contribute. As i live in Romania and i know romanian i will make sort translations for main news articles with referancet t links at talk page For Wikipedia reviewers, editors and Administrators i will contribute at article page.Because i know and i blieve that nobody cannot be invited from so many years AS A DETOX SPECIALIST to explain natural recipes and to talk about healthy lifestyle to the one of the bigest national TV station while for the tv raiting is very important and main in come. Thank you for all here that helpms me to use wikipedia and to be part for and contribute soon i will check Romanian persons and companies to contribute also Ihcm (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotional article.--Kadı Message 14:59, 4 October 2022 (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 WP:A3. (non-admin closure) Ovinus (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2019 elections in Calabarzon[edit]

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

Blank page Siuhl10 (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: WP:G7 applies, any admin want to speedy close? Justi yaya 13:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added {{Db-empty}} to request speedy deletion. GoingBatty (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2022 (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 12:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John DeBlasio[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO and coverage is mostly about the organizations he worked for and just passing mentions, no in depth coverage about the subject itself. I think creating the page for organization might work. If I remove about us pages or member profiles the entry will have no countable references. Elena Marcus D (talk) 10:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found, brief bio and what appears to be a press release about misuse of a non-profit status, unsure if it's this person. Oaktree b (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Abundant member profiles are adequate to prove notability. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, no detailed articles about him or his career just job profiles. JK.Kite (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete significant coverage not found. (t · c) buidhe 06:55, 29 September 2022 (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 11:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jesita Putri Miantoro[edit]

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

Seems like creator did not read the sources. x to y not meeting. Fails WP:V Stvbastian (talk) 07:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Indonesia. Stvbastian (talk) 07:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Badminton-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 29 September 2022 (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 11:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rafli Ramanda[edit]

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

Too early for Indonesia badminton players article. Rank 358, source #1 did not support statement, fails WP:V and BLP. Stvbastian (talk) 07:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Indonesia. Stvbastian (talk) 07:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Badminton-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 29 September 2022 (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!} 04:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sofy Al Mushira Asharunnisa[edit]

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

Too early for Indonesia badminton players article. Rank 220, source #1 did not support statement, fails WP:V and BLP. Stvbastian (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Indonesia. Stvbastian (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Badminton-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have replace Source#1 and add news form Lithuanian International Fahrurozi.86 (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find significant coverage in RS (t · c) buidhe 06:45, 29 September 2022 (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!} 23:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Jet Benny Show[edit]

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

A seemingly obscure film that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG. There are currently no reliable sources in the article, and I was unable to find much in the way of reviews. Rotten Tomatoes includes no professional reviews for the film. The best I was able to find was a very short blurb in the NYT regarding its VHS release in 1987, which can be found here. I would hesitate to call it significant coverage due to its short length, though, and it is certainly not enough to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM on its own. I was unable to find any other coverage outside of very brief namedrops. As nobody involved with the film appears to be notable themselves, I could not find a valid article for a redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. Rorshacma (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There appears to be other 1980s coverage in Newsday, the Houston Chronicle, the San Francisco Chronicle, American Cinematographer ... PQ is directing me to my library's homepage, so unable to tell right now if they're also "blurbs" or all the same wire stuff. Caro7200 (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought there might be more print media reviews from back then, hence why I brought it to AFD rather than just WP:PRODing it. But yeah, the NYT blurb is the only one I was personally able to find and view. Rorshacma (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Best I could find was Benny "The Jet" Rodriguez refs. Delete for lack of sources. Oaktree b (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the Newsday review:^[1] I am willing to send the nominator the American Cinematographer item if they are on Discord. Those two are SIGCOV. The rest are blurbs—Newspapers.com mostly turns up the same syndicated column in dozens of papers, with Newsday being its own reviewer. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Pisano, Carl (March 1, 1987). "'The Jet Benny Show'". Newsday. p. II:30. Retrieved September 8, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep based on the print sources. This seems to marginally pass WP:GNG with multiple news sources covering it significantly, in the sense that they are "address[ing] the topic directly and in detail". W 42 16:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've stricken my !vote above; if we have print sources, it should pass GNG, just barely, but passes. Thank you for finding those. Oaktree b (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, does appear to just squeak over the GNG line. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2022 (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 Ipoh–Lumut Highway. as an alternative to deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ipoh-Lumut Expressway[edit]

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

An unreferenced article. I couldn't find in-depth RS sources, but there might be sources in Malaysian. Recommend that we draftify, until proper sources can be found. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Malaysia. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the page was redirected (merged?) to Ipoh–Lumut Highway. I reverted this while in AfD. But this probably sounds like a plausible redirect target. — HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 11:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect per Hellknowz. Looks like it fits within that article. CMD (talk) 07:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect since the content already appears to be in Ipoh–Lumut Highway. --Rs chen 7754 00:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I don't find the rationale for a Merge strong enough to keep this article which goes into laborious detail about a hoax. Editors are free to go ahead and briefly mention this act at the Tron Legacy (soundtrack) article but I think the content from this article would overwhelm that one if a Merge was attempted. Feel free to create a redirect from this title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Twin (duo)[edit]

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

I'm surprised this article has existed for so long. The information about this "duo" came initially from YouTube related to Daft Punk and Tron: Legacy back in 2010. They created a fake story about their material as rejected material from the Tron Legacy OST which even Daft Punk flat out denied [79]. The article fails WP:NARTIST, WP:GNG, and most importantly WP:V. I could perhaps explain more of the nonsense but I thought a CSD for a hoax seemed like a certain thing and it was contested. Any information about them comes from self-published websites. – The Grid (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. – The Grid (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will add one source I found that is a reliable source, there's an interview for the Italian edition of the men's version of Vogue, L'Uomo Vogue, back in January 2011. [80] The music project is at best, Daft Punk fans wishing their story didn't grab a lot of attention. Beyond the story, the band fails WP:NBAND across the board. – The Grid (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article contains information about a hoax, but it is not itself a hoax, so the speedy deletion tag was incorrect, far from "a certain thing". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax that arguably contains a WP:BLP violation? I don't know about that one. It's just I thought discussion of this hoax was dead. – The Grid (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't figure out if this is a real band that the press mistook for Daft Punk, or if that real band conducted a publicity stunt by dishonestly connecting itself to Daft Punk, or if the whole thing is a hoax by someone trying to sully Daft Punk's reputation by connecting them to some reject songs. Whatever it was, some media outlets fell for it. The whole mess is a forgotten tidbit that doesn't even deserve to be mentioned at Daft Punk's article. Even if Third Twin really exists, they have accomplished nothing that deserves to be in an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This seems like a clear "Delete" to me but are there editors who want to Keep an article about a hoax?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tron: Legacy (soundtrack). This is a very poorly written article that contains some quite misleading statements and fails to clearly identify the subject as a hoax, most of the sources appear unusable and unreputable, and even discounting those issues, the topic is hardly worth a standalone article as it fails WP:LASTING and WP:SENSATIONAL. Despite this, the Billboard and Vogue sources do verify that this was a thing that happened, and that's enough for me to class it as an interesting bit of trivia which warrants only a brief mention in our coverage of the Tron: Legacy soundtrack. So, I say redirect the article there, write a sentence or two into the Tron: Legacy soundtrack page saying that the hoax took place, got picked up by the media briefly, and was disputed by Daft Punk and Disney, and leave it at that. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 06:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we end up with an unhelpful "no consensus", I can support this merge proposal as long as the mention at the soundtrack article is really brief. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some very great points mentioned, BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4. Though, if someone was looking for info about them, it would redirect them to The Third Twin. A hatnote would have to be used. I am also feeling more inclined towards deletion. Even though we have two reliable sources about the hoax, the Vogue source is perhaps the only one that goes in depth - which aligns with notability. Billboard is reporting the association with the band is false along with material rejected from Tron Legacy from their spokesmen. – The Grid (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2022 (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 procedural close. This nomination appears to be created simply because of a copy/paste pagemove, which has since been rectified. There is NPASR if there is a substantive reason for deletion. Primefac (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Street Man Fighter[edit]

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

A copy-paste from Draft:Street Man Fighter which was created on September 8th while this article created today (September 29) and this is not ready to be publish in main space. EndlessKai (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that you don't have to wait for a show to end to make a Wikipedia page right? Every major ongoing variety show has an article except this one. Oh well, I don't have a dog in this race, regardless. Jwuthe2 (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can just move the draft into the main space but you copy and pasted all of the content that Pbrian0410 and I made from the draft article and put that to another article and make it your own as if your the one the who research all of it. Isn't that called stealing? EndlessKai (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2022 (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. Let's let this be the last time this article is brought to AFD in 2022. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Samuels[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NBIO Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject passes the notability test and was covered by the New York Times, The Guardian, and so many other mainstream news outlets. If Jordan Peterson is not deleted from Wikipedia then calls for Kevin Samuels' deletion smacks of racism and whomever nominated this article for deletion needs to look in the mirror. Kunkuru (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see many reliable sources about him and his work (on the article and online search). Fad Ariff (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are not many kinds of sources that are enough for notability just by themselves, but I think an editorially-written (not paid) obituary in The New York Times is one of them. Nomination fails to make any case for why the situation has changed since the previous kept AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Samuels satisfies Creative professionals-3, with creating a significant body of work on his social media channels with millions of subscribers (as mentioned in the article). Also, nomination fails to make any case for why the situation has changed since the previous kept AfD. 2601:602:B00:B510:956F:89A3:7FF6:E31D (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have such a policy for social media personalities unless something has changed recently. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 02:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above and The Guardian also published a decent length obituary/summary of his career shortly after his death: Taking his advice was like ‘chewing broken glass’: the short life of dating guru Kevin Samuels. Skynxnex (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Oklahoma. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Since "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Samuels appears to have multiple articles primarily about him published in multiple secondary sources independent of each other and the subject. I think the NYT and Guardian obituaries mentioned above are likely enough to establish notability. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should this count if a majority of the sources are all about his death? Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 02:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources were *only* about his death, WP:BIO1E might apply. But that is not what the sources are. They are full-length obituaries that summarize his life, not merely the one event of his death. They were not published because his manner of death made him famous, but rather because a famous person died. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: since during his life, Samuels garnered some significant coverage in multiple notable outlets (e.g. BET [81], Newsweek [82], Complex [83], HipHopDX [84], Essence, Yahoo News, Parle) and his death caused wider coverage due to his impact on the internet including the New York Times, NBC News, The Root, Complex, The Daily Beast, and NPR and was featured in talks after his death among famous black women like Vivica Fox [85]. He certainly made a notable mark on black culture.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:41, 30 September 2022 (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, as improved. BD2412 T 05:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tulip Drive[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NALBUM. Has been redirected to Jimmie Allen#Tulip Drive, but that was challenged. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Keep this album article, which has a charting single, or else merge it to the singer. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're the article creator, and that's the best defense you can conjure up...? Sergecross73 msg me 19:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Yes. -- Jax 0677 (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to add that "keep" and "merge" are two vastly different solutions that contradict each other. Recommending both is illogical. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 03:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - It means keep the page if it can be kept, but merge it if it can't. However, the page has been expanded significantly since the AFD was started. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giving 2 very different options and giving zero valid reasons for either is just wasting your own time. It's WP:NOTAVOTE. Stances without valid rationales are just ignored by closers. If you feel this has ever worked for you, it's been strictly on the merits of other editors arguments. Sergecross73 msg me 20:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - When saying "Keep or merge", the point is, that the page history should not be deleted. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You also need a reason for saying "page history should not be deleted". Why? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page history contains useful information about the album, which is bettert to keep than delete per WP:REDIRECT. -- Jax 0677 (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a viable search term. Current sourcing doesn't meet the GNG, and it's really not even an article as much as a sloppy transcription of an album jacket or something. Kinda looks like someone mistook us for Discogs or something. Sergecross73 msg me 19:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jimmie Allen#Tulip Drive. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 05:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now convinced with the sources presented below. SBKSPP (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It has a robust AllMusic review ~~and a Billboard chart placement, both of which are~~ already cited. In addition to the various other sources already used, the album has widespread notice and a few more reviews in the country music press, such as: [86], [87], [88], [89], [90]. Also lots of coverage for its guest appearance from Jennifer Lopez: [91], [92], [93], [94], [95]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 03:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Doomsdayer520: The album didn't chart. The Billboard chart position is for one of its singles. Ss112 04:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An error in my syntax. Regardless, the sources describe the album as a whole beyond the one single. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jimmie Allen#Tulip Drive. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator - This page was expanded significantly after several comments were made. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: out of the sources Doomsdayer found, Country Daily and Country Now both appear to be just repeating ad copy so I wouldn't keep those, and I've never trusted Rock n Load for suspecting the same from them. However, the Wide Open Country and Country Swag reviews are solid and those combined with what's already in the article should be enough to pass. This interview with Billboard may also be useful regarding notability, or at the very least worth adding to the article anyway. QuietHere (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As that source is almost entirely quotes from the musician, it is not independent and therefore does not count towards notability. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in light of the sources indicated in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 05:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by Doomsdayer. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NALBUM and WP:SIGCOV per the sources provided above.4meter4 (talk) 03:05, 7 October 2022 (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. No problem if editors wish to create a redirect from this page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Ikki[edit]

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

Fictional character. While there is a reception section, it seems to be cobbled together from passing mentions (fails WP:SIGCOV). The lengthiest analysis supposedly comes from a source 6 that however, despite being archived, does not seem to exist (or at least I can't seem to click through to it). My BEFORE failed to find anything useful. The article, therefore, fails WP:GNG. At best, in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, I recommend a merge of the creation and reception sections to List of Saint Seiya characters and redirecting the article there afterwards (and on that note, I invite interested editors to comment at Talk:List_of_Saint_Seiya_characters#Merge_from_the_list_of_anime-only_characters). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Anime and manga. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only passing mentions for this character and no WP:SIGCOV to demonstrate notability. A redirect to the manga, or the character list would be fine. Jontesta (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do note that it is still eligible for "soft" redirecting, without the need to "hard" delete the history. There is a valid redirect target, as I noted in my op. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect per Piotrus. This is mostly constructed from passing mentions and fails WP:SIGCOV. There is a valid redirect target, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2022 (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 "delete" side argues persuasively that the sources presented are insufficient; the "keep" side for the most part does not engage with their arguments. Sandstein 06:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fatah Ahamada[edit]

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

No coverage found beyond routine database listings. Rusalkii (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rusalkii (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found [96], [97] , [98], and among many many more sources. Clearly was significant figure in Comoros football with an ongoing career. In addition, he is one of few Comoros players to every play abroad, in Europe. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I'd found that first source I wouldn't have nominated it, I don't know how I missed it. I'm not sure if it all adds up to notability but it's at worst borderline and certainly much better than most of our footballer stubs. Rusalkii (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given WP:BIAS concerns about coverage from smaller countries, a borderline case should skew toward Keep. matt91486 (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Africa, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Das osmnezz: The 24heures article seems fine, but the second article presented is entirely an interview without background biography or other significant background information (thus failing independence) while the third is a trivial mention (not significant coverage). Need more sources with the WP:GNG in mind. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG after improvements IMO.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per all of the above. This looks like a rather random nomination. On the positive side, he was not prodded. Prodding happens very frequently with articles where a discussion can be expected. gidonb (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as we only have one good source. Ping me if anything else is found. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found three good sources among many many other French sources, also article has been vastly expanded by Robby.is.on and I, which took some time. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen those extra sources but only the first one is significant coverage, as per analysis from Mellohi! MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 18:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with MOTG, we only have one SIRS (it has a nice paragraph on Ahamada) and a bunch of trivial/routine coverage. That is far from passing WP:GNG, and given that he is an amateur with a single international appearance (in a glorified friendly), I can't see how we would justify IAR here. Jogurney (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per MOTG and Jogurney. GNG is not achieved with a single source of SIGCOV, and no number of passing routine mentions can add up to BASIC. JoelleJay (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator has agreed that this is a good source, and thus WP:SPORTBASIC is met. Then - instead of arguing here with non-existent black-and-white rules about just one reference - simply get another one - like this - and now GNG and NSPORT are both met. Nfitz (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That second source is a match report which does not help him pass GNG or any other criteria. Dougal18 (talk) 09:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, primary match reports fail our guidelines in multiple ways. JoelleJay (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a primary match report. It's a secondary in-depth extensive article about a match, which has numerous mentions of Ahamada. WP:ROUTINE talks of sports scores being routine - not in-depth articles. Nfitz (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do you think that article was written with the tenses it uses without being primary? And anyway it is extensive only in that it offers a play-by-play of specific match details from the perspective of one spectator, with nothing encyclopedic or DUE from the handful of sentences describing Ahamada's involvement. ROUTINE is not limited to simple box scores, the guideline explicitly says Planned coverage of scheduled events and sports matches are routine so that makes two places where this type of coverage is excluded. JoelleJay (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be past-tense to me other than the odd metaphor. Before I pull out my Bescherelle, can you point to the conjugation that concerns you? When ROUTINE discusses sports matches, it's telling us that we shouldn't be writing articles about an individual sports match. WP:ROUTINE contains examples about what shouldn't have articles. It's not a discussion of whether the source can or can't be used as a GNG source for another subject - such as a player, or an incident during a match (say for example a fire when much of the stadium burns down). Nfitz (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

jfc... ROUTINE is mostly concerned with whether an event merits an article, but it also literally defines sports matches (and their coverage) as routine, and that designation is used by NSPORT in its descriptions of what type of coverage is considered insufficient for GNG. This is not difficult to understand! JoelleJay (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you confirm, User:JoelleJay if jfc is an abbreviation for Jesus Fucking Christ - and if so, how that is not a bannable offence? If it's a euphemism how is that not a violation of WP:CIVIL? Even an interjection seems unnecessary. Also you are dodging the question; what was the verb tense that gave you concern? Nfitz (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and take me to ANI if you think that's a bannable offense.

The match report features multiple instances of present tense commentary, as you know, that is strongly suggestive of first-person primary reporting. L’ailier comorien a-t-il fait faute ou non sur Rafael Fiorèse dans sa course au départ de l’action? Lui assure que non, le Champagnou estime que oui, et M. Criblet a pris sa décision: jouez! But even if it's secondary, it is still routine coverage as defined by ROUTINE and as explicitly rejected by NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And even if such a source was accepted, it still doesn't offer SIGCOV, especially not of anything encyclopedic. JoelleJay (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to ascertain what the meaning was other than Jesus Fucking Christ; I'd hoped you'd have told me that it was some kind of reference to something like Juventus F.C.; I have no intention of taking a single personal attack to ANI - but I'm concerned that your reaction to be caught violating one of the pillars is not to simply apologize, but to challenge me to report you. Also I don't see how that sentence, indicates that the source is primary; also, that's not present tense, that's the subjunctive tense for assurer and estimer. I wouldn't translate anything to "as you know" anywhere in that sentence. I think by ROUTINE and NSPORT you are referring in particular to WP:SPORTBASIC - which nonetheless is met with the other reference, as SPORTBASIC notes Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. Nfitz (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the pillars forbid swearing, much less common expressions of exasperation.
"Subjunctive" isn't a tense; "Lui assure que non" is in présent tense with subjonctif mood; if it was passé it would be "ait (or a) assuré".
SPORTBASIC requires at least one SIGCOV source, but as explicitly said in the very next sentence that you omitted, that is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. This has been explained to you many, many times, including by admins, e.g. here editors are encouraged not to refer to the final point of WP:SPORTCRIT, which is clearly not trying to say a single source is sufficient for notability for a sports person, when the first sentence aligns exactly with GNG in the requirement of multiple significant independent sources as all articles require. and here A single source is enough to prevent a PROD, but not enough to keep an article at WP:AFD if no additional sources can be found. and here Read the very next line. "Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to meet the GNG." I.e, it still needs to meet the GNG. and by me recently here. You've also been informed of the relationship between NSPORT and ROUTINE multiple times, like here with WP:ROUTINE is called out as a criteria in WP:SPORTBASIC, which applies here. ... WP:SPORTCRIT specifically calls out WP:ROUTINE in the third bullet.

Your continued disruption at AfDs, wasting everyone's time with the same repeatedly rejected arguments, is far more deserving of a ban than any "swearing", and I would ask @Liz or whoever closes this to please take this into consideration. JoelleJay (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swearing at another user, simply because they think you are wrong, is most certainly a much worse offence than pointing out the fallacies in your argument - fallacies that I've pointed out in the past multiple times, and you still argue otherwise. I think we are done here, unless you want to WP:BLUDGEON further. How you actually think it's okay to further WP:BIAS by going this far for a player that clearly has one GNG source, and has other borderline sources - I still don't see how the use of the subjunctive makes this a primary source, whether it be tense, tone, or mood. Nfitz (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the discussion is still occurring right now. It's hard to close a discussion when participants have different understandings of what a valid source establishing notability is. Sources are presented and then are accepted by some editors as establishing GNG while they are rejected by others as not. Can we come to some agreement about definitions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Delete based on current sourcing. ~~I'm really on the fence.~~ [99] is by far the best current source, and clearly passes the WP:100WORDS essay, but half of it is quotes from the subject. With the additonal commentary, I'd still say it's a GNG source, maybe 4/5 of one. [100] is an interview with zero independent commentary—not enough to count toward GNG. [101] is ~~okay, clearly independent, although rather routine~~ likely unreliable. What brings me to delete is that this player hasn't played a game at the national level since 2018. If he plays some more games at the national level and receives additional coverage, that should be enough for recreation. Ovinus (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ovinus, just a note that I'm pretty sure comorosfootball.com is a group blog focused on hyping Comorian football, rather than professional journalism, per their "about" section: "We are young people who have given themselves the courage and love to serve our nation and support our football institutions by informing while promoting Comorian football locally and internationally. Our actions gained momentum in 2014 with our social media presence first on Facebook and then on Twitter before starting to write our first blog posts a year later." JoelleJay (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I guess I was too trusting, thanks. Adjusted accordingly. Ovinus (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Only one significant source has been identified and GNG requires multiple. Alvaldi (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found three good sources among many many other French sources, also article has been vastly expanded by Robby.is.on and I, which took some time. To the closer, keep in mind the nominator (Rusalkii) themselves has essentially rescinded their nomination and expressed the desire to keep the article, as well as the fact that there are 2+ more keep votes than delete (3+ if you count the nominators statement expressing their desire to keep the article, which leaves 8 keep votes and 5 delete at the time of writing). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely did not find "three good sources". This is pure Q&A interview, which you know is unacceptable, and this has three scattered sentences on him in a group blog post: obviously not SIGCOV in RS. JoelleJay (talk) 05:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Das osmnezz Note that consensus in AfD is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of different perspectives presented during the discussion, and is not calculated solely by number of votes. The closing admin should also note that @JoelleJay assesment on the sources is spot on.

This Q&A interview includes no independent commentary and thus is a primary source as the information in it about the subject comes from the subject himself.
This Comorosfootball source, which according to their own site is a blog, only states that he scored a goal for a new club and thus is not a significant source.
The laregion.ch source is a routine match report that does not count towards GNG per WP:NSPORTS.
The 24heures.ch source is the only WP:SIGCOV that has been presented and for the subject to pass WP:GNG, he needs to have multiple significant sources.

These assesments have not been refuted by the Keep !voters. Alvaldi (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV per the convincing source analysis above. The subject lack multiple independent indepth coverage in RS.4meter4 (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2022 (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 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in New York#District 22. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Conole[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Coverage is routine campaign coverage and he is not otherwise notable. Suggest redirecting to election page and recreating in November if he wins. Marquardtika (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Iraq war vet doesn't make him notable, potential politician isn't notable either. Wiki isn't for promoting your campaign, which I think was the intent of the article. Oaktree b (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, Iraq, and New York. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment do we have other examples where we've deleted or redirect an article for a politcal candidate from a major party? I only ask because I've noted to remove articles for candidates in the past but they were always in a minor party and my gut say we should keep this article since he's a candidate with a lot of coverage. But if we have examples of where we've removed similar articles in the past then I'm all for keeping things consistent and fair. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:POLOUTCOMES. It is usual that candidates are redirected to the campaign page about the election, in this case 2022_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_New_York#District_22. If you look at the archives page for politicians, there are many examples of candidates redirected or deleted. - Enos733 (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To add on to this, this is what the notability guideline says for "substantial coverage" that would be required to pass for those who haven't held office or been elected to office:
Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.

I don't think such independent coverage exists for this person. Duonaut^{(talk | contribs)} 04:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. May pass later, or if he becomes a notable perennial candidate, etc. and in that case undeletion may be in order. But I would say that as most coverage surrounds his campaigning and coverage of his service as a policy advisor is minimal he does not pass NPOL. Duonaut^{(talk | contribs)} 04:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in New York as is longstanding standard practice for the vast majority of unelected political candidates. We do not need to host tens of thousands of barely disguised campaign brochures. If this person wins in November, the article can be recreated at that time. Cullen328 (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in New York per WP:POLOUTCOMES and Cullen328's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in New York#District 22, no reason not to have the more specific redirect. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in New York#District 22. Djflem (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2022 (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!} 08:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Az-Azahra Putri Dania[edit]

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

It's too early for a Wikipedia article especially for Indonesian badminton players. Never won a tournament, x statement to y sources is unrelated. Stvbastian (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Indonesia. Stvbastian (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Badminton. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. runner up in a non-notable tournament, and no souces, does not an article make. Oaktree b (talk) 02:51, 29 September 2022 (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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Johnson III[edit]

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

Undrafted players come and go all the time, and this user went ahead and created 6 pages for players that may never get a chance to play in an NFL game, bringing the purpose and point of their article's existence into question.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonjcole (talk • contribs) 01:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Oregon, and Texas. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to keep this article however, we should encourage this user and the Wiki community to improve these articles, as this one and the other articles created by this user are not up to standard. Masonjcole (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Masonjcole: Playing one game in the NFL is not the touchstone of notability. Whether the individual is a college or pro player, the touchstone under WP:GNG is the presence of WP:SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, independent sources. JJIII has received such coverage, and I have added a sprinkling of such coverage to the article. We do need help weeding out unworthy articles, but please have a look at WP:BEFORE for suggested steps to take before nominating further articles for deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Had 837 receiving yards in 2019 and then had seasons shortened by COVID in 2020 and injury in 2021, but still ended up with 1,928 receiving yards in his career at Oregon. Also ranks No. 10 in Oregon's long football history with 139 career receptions. See here. The following items may be viewed to greater or lesser degrees as SIGCOV: (1) "Super senior receiver Johnny Johnson III a ‘consummate leader’ for Oregon Ducks", The Oregonian, 8/24/21; (2) "Johnny Johnson III heads up a deep and talented receiver corps", USA Today, 4/16/21; (3) Johnson's time to shine, Corvallis Gazette-Times, 9/19/18; (4) "Johnny Johnson III’s exceptional blocking setting the tone for Oregon Ducks receivers who have been ‘hit and miss’ at taking on defenders", The Oregonian, 9/21/21; (5) "Oregon Ducks receiver Johnny Johnson III on Biletnikoff watch list", The Register-Guard, 7/16/20; (6) "Brothers forever, Chandler teammates T.J. Green, Johnny Johnson will be college rival", AZCentral, 11/23/16. Also 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Cbl62 (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Cbl62. Passes the general notability guideline. Players do not need to play in the NFL to be notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although there is no consensus for notability of college football players (Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Notability#Players), he meets some of the criteria discussed, with significant statistics on a major college team, and seems to meet GNG. Ira Leviton (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Cbl62. It meets WP:GNG based on the significant coverage. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG per the sources provided by Cbl62. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. This is a no-brainer. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 18:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments from others. It appears to be snowing.--Rockchalk7 17 22:46, 30 September 2022 (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!} 05:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dejan Ferdinansyah[edit]

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

Where are the sources that support notability? Where are the sources date and place of birth and handedness? The article title is Dejan Ferdinansyah, but the source is Saifi Rizka.. Stvbastian (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed does not appear to be notable. No reliable source --Bigneeerman (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I replace the source with data from PBSI, and I watch him play with right hand in Indonesia International Series.. I advice you to watch it by your eyes.. User:Stvbastian Fahrurozi.86 (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dejan Ferdinansyah (born 21 January 2000) is an Indonesian badminton player from PB Djarum. That information still not enough as a Wikipedia article. You need to add a statement that makes him worthy as a Wikipedia article (we called it here as notability). And every statement, data, table should be support with reliable secondary sources especially for BLP article. Your advice is useless, watching a video won't change anything, and will not make the article notable. Find the reliable sources and add that sources to the article. Thanks. cc User:Fahrurozi.86 Stvbastian (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anupama Upadhyaya (born 12 February 2005) is an Indian badminton player. She is currently the World Junior Number 1.

For example, is she worthy to be in a Wikipedia article? Fahrurozi.86 (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop looking for other mistakes. Raise your knowledge by reading Wikipedia's rules and applying them to each of your contributions. User:Fahrurozi.86 Thanks Stvbastian (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be a good police, you need to look to another mistake. Do not only judge me. And than I will give you the position to make contribution to Indonesian player. Fahrurozi.86 (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a police or a judge, i'm just trying to comply with Wikipedia's rules, and i don't need the position you're referring to. :) Stvbastian (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We need sources that talk about them as a person, not just they did xyz thing. Any stories in local media about their accomplishments? Oaktree b (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article actually fails WP:NBAD. Australian Open is the highest tournament in Australia, Denmark Open is the highest tournament in Denmark (not Denmark Masters), as well Indonesia Open is the highest tournament in Indonesia (not Indonesia International). Stvbastian (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete significant coverage in reliable sources not found. (t · c) buidhe 06:53, 29 September 2022 (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Jeddah (1520)[edit]

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

Per User: Liz:

"But this is definitely not using "No consensus" in lieu of a "Keep" decision. I think you'd have a more productive and focused discussion if there was a return to AFD with these articles unbundled so participants could spend time assessing the notability of each individual event instead of discussing contributors or speculating on their motivations and points-of-view. I think it would also be helpful if you posted announcements of future AFD discussions on related WikiProjects, like Military History, on the next go-round. We need more subject matter experts here."

Done.

The article claims a supposed Portuguese attack on Jeddah in 1520, defeated by the Ottomans, which never actually took place. It's part of a series of bogus pages created by the same user.

As Robert Kerr wrote here:

"After Sequeira had dispatched the homeward bound trade of the season, under the command of Fernan Perez de Andrada, he sailed on the 13th of February 1520, from Goa with 24 sail of ships of various sizes, having on board 1800 Portuguese soldiers and an equal number of Malabars and Canarins, bound for the Red Sea. Off the coast of Aden his ship struck on a rock and split in pieces; but the men were all saved and Sequeira the governor went into the galleon of Pedro de Faria. A Moorish ship was taken at the entrance into the Red Sea, from which they learnt that there were six Turksh gallies at Jiddah with 1200 men, intending to proceed against Aden. The weather prevented the Portuguese from going in the quest of the Turkish squadron, and in fact it would have been no purpose; as on hearing that the Portuguese were in these seas, the Turks hauled their gallies on shore."

Western Arabia & the Red Sea, published by the UK Naval Intelligence Division says here that:

"Later Portuguese expeditions were sent primarily to investigate or interrupt Turkish naval preparations to regain sea-power. Diogo Lopes de Sequeira ventured into the Red Sea in 1520 but did not meet the Turks. At Massawa he landed an envoy to the Negus, who wanted the Portuguese to build forts there and at Zeila and Suakin."

The British scholar R. B. Serjeant wrote in The Portuguese Off the South Arabian Coast page 171: Hadrami Chronicles: "This is the expedition of Diogo Lopes de Sequeira. Gois, gives the composition of the Portuguese fleet as 26 sail, comprising 11 large ships (naos), 2 galleons, 5 galleys, 4 square-rigged ships, 2 brigantines, and 2 caravels. (Some of the aforegoing are only dictionary translations.) The ‘very large galliot’ seems to be what Barros, ill. iii. 10, calls um bargantim per a recados (a brigantine for provisions and equipment). They did not land at al-'Ârah, but the San Antonio struck a reef there (Castanheda, v. 23, and F. Alvarez, Verdadeira Informaçâo . . . (Lisboa, 1889), p. 5). Presents intended for the Emperor of Abyssinia were lost with this vessel, which caused the envoys trouble and embarrassment when they reached the Abyssinian court. De Sequeira had been ordered to sail to Jeddah, but abandoned the attempt on account of contrary winds, and the Portuguese then stood across to Massawa. After leaving Massawa they burnt what there was to be found on Dahlak".

And finally, I'd like to present the testimony of the Portuguese chronicler Fernão Lopes de Castanheda, who recorded the early history of the Portuguese in Asia, and wrote here: Capítulo XXIII. De como indo ho governador pera a cidade de Iuda se lhe perdeu a nao em q hia. E de como não podendo ir a Iuda foy surgir á ilha de Maçua meaning: "Chapter 23. On how the governor lost the carrack on which he travelled as we went towards Jeddah. And not being able to go to Jeddah called at the island of Massawa".

One of the sources cited by the creator says: "Portuguese ships had once appeared in the waters off Jeddah in 1505 and in 1520 they were sighted there anew". Nothing about any battle. Wareno (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Saudi Arabia, and Portugal. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Wareno has argued quite persuasively, there was no siege of Jeddah by the Portuguese in 1520. Thanks for the excellent research. Cullen328 (talk) 04:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or speedy) as a hoax. (t · c) buidhe 06:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. -Suratrat (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly false. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - All of the preceding, largely unsubstantiated delete votes, seem to be arbitrarily convinced that this is a hoax, and fail to address that some kind of attempted attack by the Portuguese does seem to have taken place against Jeddah in 1520 as stated by multiple sources. If you can present sources with conflicting information, that does not mean that the article should just be deleted, rather you should continue the discussion on the talk page of the article and try to reach some kind of consensus on there about how the article should be written. It does not seem right to use a deletion nomination as some kind of substitute for lack of participation in the articles talk page.--Gazozlu (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I hardly see the use in having a "Not-a-Siege of Jeddah (1520)" article with a paragraph detailing how some ships moved around one day on the Red Sea. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  It does not seem like the sources cited in the article were actually read by the participants here. Gazozlu (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2022 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biplob Saha[edit]

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

This article looks like promotion ~~to me~~. Article lists bunch of fashion shows and awards name but without providing any sources. I also have doubts about the notability of these awards. The person didn't won any major award for automatic notability. Other than some passing mentions, i didn't found any significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ARTIST. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Fashion, and Bangladesh. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norm. Mehedi Abedin 04:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fail GNG per my searching. (t · c) buidhe 06:50, 29 September 2022 (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. People can start a discussion to merge or redirect as needed, or even do so boldly, but that isn't the purpose of AfD and no clear consensus has developed here. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom and Autonomy[edit]

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

A list that took part in the regional election in Friuli Venezia Giulia in 2003 and that's it, with 2.5% of the votes and no one elected. No source is present on the page, while the sources on the web only indicate that "Freedom and Autonomy" was the list of Ferruccio Saro and nothing more. It definitely doesn't meet WP:GNG. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In my view, a political party obtaining 2.8% of the vote is evidently encyclopedic and deserves an article. The article is not sourced, but sources can be easily found. This said, if regrettably there is no consensus on keeping the article, I hope we can at least merge it into 2003 Friuli-Venezia Giulia regional election or Responsible Autonomy, of which Freedom and Autonomy is the precursor, in order to preserve this article's history. --Checco (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Checco, if the sources can be easily found, then find them... Saying that the sources are there and can be found, without then indicating them, makes no sense at all. You should read WP:ORG and WP:GNG, to try to provide more suitable reasons. Merging this page with 2003 Friuli-Venezia Giulia regional election would be quite useless, but merging it with Responsible Autonomy would be unreasonable (the statement "of which Freedom and Autonomy is the precursor" seems to me a lot like a WP:Original Research).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my view, in this case the best solution would be the one already chosen in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craftsman-Farmer Alliance, ie the creation of the leader page (Ferruccio Saro) and a merger with it. In this case even more so, since this party has never even obtained a seat and the page is totally devoid of sources. I undertake myself to create the Ferruccio Saro's article.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Checco I would like an answer regarding the sources: are there sources on this party that are not mere mentions in articles regarding Ferruccio Saro? Because if they don't exist, I don't see the use of keeping autonomous a page like this one.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I understand the recommendation to create a reference to the Ferruccio Saro page, however, this seems to have been a short-lived "movement" that gets only passing mention on that page. And again there isn't a page for this movement in the IT wikipedia, which gives us an idea of how important it is locally. No sources found. Lamona (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – with Responsible Autonomy Braganza (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco and Braganza: just one question: this list has no connection with Responsible Autonomy, why did you propose to merge with it? In my view this page can be also deleted, but in the case of merger, wouldn't it be more logical to merge it with its founder, Giuseppe Ferruccio Saro?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
both were pro-Tondo civic lists but yeah this is possibility too Braganza (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But Renzo Tondo has never joined this list in any form, as far as I know. Indeed Freedom and Autonomy was founded to support the candidacy of Giuseppe Saro.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd like to see more consensus on a Merge or Redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the 2003 election as suggested above. Beyond that, maybe to a list of Italian political parties. Oaktree b (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2022 (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. Delete and redirect to International Alliance of Libertarian Parties. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Movement (Italy)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article that was incredibly saved 12 years ago. The article (very accurate but blatantly promotional) is about a party which definitely doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources cited in the article come exclusively from the website of the party itself, while on the web I have not found anything relevant, if not two or three mentions at the most. The page was created by a blocked user (Lib3rtarian) who exclusively edited this page, so probably a person very close to the party. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A party or a political organisation can be encyclopedic even if it does not participate in elections. This subject, a political party active since 2005 and Italy's member of the International Alliance of Libertarian Parties, is evidently encyclopedic. No matter its original author, several valuable users have contributed to the article, which is well sourced and well written. AfDs are often decided inconsistently and by very few users, thus outcomes can be very surprising and against the grain, but I really cannot understand how such a subject can be proposed for deletion, let alone deleted. --Checco (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Checco: It seems to me that you cannot understand how any (irrelevant) article can be deleted, not just this one. About this page, there is not a single source (and I repeat, not even one) that is not a first party source. Where are the third-party sources, indispensable for any article to stay on Wikipedia? I don't see them, but maybe you can show them to me. The few other news cited in the article do not even mention this party. The mere membership of an International organization certainly does not confer automatic relevance to a party of which no third party source speaks. This is a completely self-referencing page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International Alliance of Libertarian Parties, article is currently referenced to a mix of primary sources and clearly unreliable sources, and I could find nothing better from a search. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not clear to me that this was ever a political party, that is a party that received significant votes. It is not listed on either the EN or IT lists of Italian Political Parties. The only third-party sources on the page are dead links, unfortunately, and the majority of the links are to the movement's own web page. I think we do best to stick to the parties listed on the Italian pages, and hope that those will be keep current. I also want to note that I find it odd to have pages here with informal translations of the names of the groups - there is no way that one would know what to look for when named persons or groups do not have themselves an English-language equivalent. I don't know how to do that better, but some of the names may not be ones people would look under. If nothing else, a reference from the native name to the English translation should exist, no? Lamona (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – it is a member of IALP Braganza (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - According to the subject's own website, the subject identifies itself as a cultural associationand an [anti]politic subject, ...working to the spreading of the libertarian culture in Italy... (mine translation). Definitely it is not a political party: writing an article as if it were a political party is WP:OR as minimum. P1221 (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – What a political party says of itself is not a third-party source (for instance, the Five Star Movement says that it is not a party, but it is exactly that). The Libertarian Movement is the Italian member of IALP, thus it is obviously a party. However, a subject can be encyclopedic also if it is not a party, otherwise political associations, factions, think tanks and so on could not have a place in Wikipedia, which is not the case. This longstanding outfit (call it as you want) deserves an article. --Checco (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checco Regardless of what type of corporate entity or organization it is, there needs to be some number of significant third-party sources for it to stand as a wikipedia article. Belonging to IALP has no affect on WP:N. So if you can find sources please cite them here, or add them to the article. I found some mentions in La Repubblica and one possible good source but that requires a subscription. Corriere wouldn't let me search it as a phrase so I got too many false hits. Are there other places to look for sources? Lamona (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just read the first deletion nomination and it has very good information - better than what we've added here - so I highly recommend looking at that. There is some well-done analysis of sources and of references in the article. It's from 2010 so the article has changed, but most of the analysis there seems also relevant to what we see today. Lamona (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found some references on the internet (not many), surely, if kept, the page would need a radical arrangement of the sources (in the article currently are almost all first-party sources.).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I was going to close this discussion but there are recent comments about finding more sources to support this group's notability so obviously the discussion is still continuing up til today. Of course, relisting doesn't prevent any admin from closing this discussion at any point in the next week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After checking and doing some searches of my own, I see no evidence that this organization has significant coverage in RS. Despite extensive discussion, it hasn't been shown to meet GNG much less the rigorous standard expected at WP:NCORP. (t · c) buidhe 06:48, 29 September 2022 (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.

[News870301-1] Pisano, Carl (March 1, 1987). "'The Jet Benny Show'". Newsday. p. II:30. Retrieved September 8, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.

[1]