Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 4: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:25, 4 May 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 03	May 05 >

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 no consensus‎. There is no consensus to delete. Arguments for moving to Pedantry are strong, but that is outside the scope of this AfD. Owen× ☎ 13:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pedant

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

Dictionary definition with etymology. Violates WP:NOTDICT. - Skipple ☎ 03:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. - Skipple ☎ 03:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Pedantry, as per Chiswick Chap. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't wish to be, er. pedantic here, but the criterion for notability is not whether the article is poorly-cited, but whether there are suitable sources out there in the world. Pedantry is unfortunately definitely a notable topic. Sources include the famous essay Of Pedantry by Michel de Montaigne, alongside a mass of modern research papers on a wide variety of aspects of pedantry. A good newspaper article is Why do pedants pedant? in The Guardian. There's plenty more out there. The article needs to be rewritten, but that's not a matter for AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This feels... pedantic... but I agree with your argument yet think it supports a move to Pedantry. Orange sticker (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would make good sense, yes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily disagree with the creation of Pedantry but it seems that would be a new article rather than a move of the current article. Certainly once it's created we can redirect, but until that's the case I'm not convinced Pedant should remain. - Skipple ☎ 13:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. This is just a dictionary definition with a couple of cites. Per WP:!, it needs expansion to be useful which might be possible. If someone does this then perhaps reconsider.Ldm1954 (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there editors up for rewriting this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz If needed, I can put this on my backlog. I have a few major tasks that I wanted to complete beforehand, but I volunteer to fix article up if it is kept and/or moved. Thanks,Neuropol^Talk 14:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dicdef. Desertarun (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to pedantry. This is certainly notable, and could be expanded greatly. Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, but pedantry as a concept is a very notable topic which could be applied to the fields of psychology, linguistics, and sociology. Deletion should not be a substitution for improvement. Thanks,Neuropol^Talk 13:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacopo Bocchi

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

Rugby player who played 12 seasons in the Italian league. However, all I was able to find were transactional announcements: renewal, renewal, renewal, renewal, release. Perhaps he has a nickname he goes by? JTtheOG (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. The sources used are not entirely reliable and enough to show notability. Some sources only make a trival mention of the subject. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 13:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lovari (musician)

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

Doesn't seem to have any notable or significant credits. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References for Lovari on Wheel Of Fortune (2023): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV8rMTIQ2C0

https://bobbymgsk.wordpress.com/2023/02/01/wheel-of-fortune-1-31-23/

References for Lovari on Judge Jerry Springer (2022):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U78Iy9fFQkc

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt25965282/releaseinfo/

https://followmy.tv/episodes/2487792/judge-jerry/3x104/103

References for Lovari on Match Game (2019):

https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/match-game-season-four-viewer-votes/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5672484/characters/nm2102281

References for Lovari in The Barn 2 (2022):

https://dailydead.com/horror-highlights-8-found-dead-the-harbinger-the-barn-part-ii/

https://hellhorror.com/movies/the-barn-part-ii-movie-7804.html

https://podcasts.apple.com/es/podcast/trhs-random-chat-with-lovari/id1539578136?i=1000641962062

https://getoutmag.com/lovari-5/ 98.109.154.93 (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added filmography and television appearances of the subject that reflect current dates through May 2024. 170.212.0.95 (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanette Coron

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

The subject appears to fail to meet the GNG or any suitable SNG. Running a before using Google News results in only a list of quotes from the subject. When filtering out quotes leads to a single website which only attributes another quote to the subject. Broadening the search to Google generally only provides links to social media, links to purchase books authored by the subject, and links to listen to subject's music. Page creator found 2 sources, [1] and [2], both of which are press releases and so are ineligible for establishing notability. I do not believe there is any suitable redirect targets. —Sirdog (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Bands and musicians. —Sirdog (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've verified the above and not found anything different. Global and Mail looks like it might be an RS, but it clearly marks both these pages as press releases. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Stated clearly in the sources provided that it's press release. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. @T.C.G. [talk] 09:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clear press releases which are not independent. Else, there is a quote in Newsweek but that isnt significant coverage Robertjamal12 ~🔔 09:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girls' Brigade Singapore

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

Fails WP:GNG and notability guidelines for organizations; the only source in the article is a primary source connected to the organization. ~~Additionally, I don't think this is in-depth coverage we're looking to estabilsh notability!~~ ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the strength of added references. Patronage by the country's president is an argument in favour of notability as an important part of youth culture in Singapore. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Eastmain. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician)#Speaker tenure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to remove Mike Johnson as Speaker of the House

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

Unlikely to result in any action. The vast majority of references do not pertain to the topic directly. This could be merged. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:45, 4 May 2024 (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/2024 May 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Don't you think it might be a bit WP:TOOSOON / WP:CRYSTALBALL to say it's unlikely to result in anything? Hey man im josh (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Far-right Republicans and Democrats opposed to Johnson's tenure do not have enough strength in numbers to oust him. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Events, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Rather ridiculous when the background is longer than the content about the subject itself. Content belongs at Mike_Johnson_(Louisiana_politician)#Speaker_tenure until a split is actually warranted. Even if a vote happens (and likely fails), it doesn't inherently need its own article – WP:TOOSOON to have one! Reywas92^Talk 15:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Mike_Johnson_(Louisiana_politician)#Speaker_tenure per nom. and Reywas92. Simply a a case of WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice against re-creation should future RS-based coverage warrant it. Sal2100 (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the article about Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician)#Speaker_tenure. The motion failed, so it doesn't merit its own article. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak draftify. This article is not ready for mainspace and shouldn't have been moved. Coverage is pretty routine. However, I am of the opinion that once a vote occurs it will almost surely meet the GNG. This AFD will almost certainly be open by the time the vote occurs. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to House Democratic leaders, "If she invokes the motion, it will not succeed". A vote to remove the speaker of the House is not notable. A removal is. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles like Efforts to impeach George W. Bush and Barack Obama which were also never voted upon. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 16:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Efforts in the title. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now that a vote has a occured. But even without a vote occuring, these sources are probably good enough for a keep [3], [4], [5], [6]. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, While a vote has occured, I feel that many parts of this article could be kept elsewhere. At the same time, I feel like the vote to table the motion itself could be kept on Motion to vacate the chair#Filing against Mike Johnson (2024). I would be open to bringing the article back if additional votes to remove Johnson are held, and/or if he is removed from office.Talthiel (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Merge/relocate content?
this could all be explained in varying detail between the following articles:
SecretName101 (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of television stations in Maine#LPTV stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WEXZ-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Maine. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in Maine#LPTV stations: 2010s-established LPTVs that have only ever carried full-time national services are not going to have much chance of attaining significant coverage these days, and there really isn't much to say about them anyway. (As it is, a good chunk of the history section is about the station owner, not WEXZ-LD itself.) Note that this title was originally a redirect to the list of Retro Television Network affiliates when we still had one, but we no longer do. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Deletion on the basis of consensus in so small a field might be doubtful, but the fact that the article also qualifies for speedy deletion as created by a block-evading editor (using both an account & IP editing), and arguably also as promotional removes any doubt. JBW (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somali Inside News

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

No notability upon WP:BEFORE. Doesn't meet GNG or NME 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 13:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Organizations. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 13:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
since WP: NEO is cited, let us see what it says, Articles on Somali Inside News that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, but in this case, this phrase is very widely cited across an enormous variety of reliable sources. The phrase probably should also be mentioned Mass media in Somalia. if anyone can tell us why it should be deleted. @Rydex64 HelperWik25 (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Somalia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We really need a lot more editors participating in AFD discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination, this fails WP:NME and WP:GNG as there are no secondary, reliables sources available. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Musharraf Ali Farooqi

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

This appears to be a clear case of WP:AUTOBIO. None of the subject's work appears outstanding, which means he fails to meet WP:AUTHOR. Additionally, there is a lack of significant coverage in WP:RS, further failing to meet the basic WP:GNG. Moreover, the BLP seems overly promotional and is written by SPAs Urdulibrary (talk · contribs) Hammad.anwar (talk · contribs) Sibyl12drip (talk · contribs) —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work, including the addition of reliable citations. However, a quick search in the Wikipedia Library turned out a ton of reliable citations proving this author's notability. This includes reviews in places like Publishers Weekly (link 1 and 2), Kirkus (link) and many other places. The subject also has an entry in Baker & Taylor Author Biographies. All in all, easily meets Wikipedia's author notability standards. --SouthernNights (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it true that WP:N are based on the WP:GNG, which require significant in-depth coverage about the subject? I haven't been able to find such coverage so far. Additionally, if we're considering WP:AUTHOR, it requires the subject's work to be noteworthy. However, none of the subject's works are even mentioned on WP. So, how can we assume they're not noteworthy solely based on some WP:ROTM coverage and reviews. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for WP:Author states "Such a person is notable if ... The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Nothing in that criteria states that the work itself must be represented on Wikipedia. Also, WP:GNG are the general notability guidelines while the guidelines for creative professionals give additional guidance. If a subject meets any of the criteria within any of the notability guidelines, they are assumed to be notable. SouthernNights (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

East Asian identity

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

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern European identity. Similar to the Northwestern European people, Eastern European people and Eastern European identity articles by the same user that have also been deleted, this similarly written article has the same problems. WP:SYNTH + WP:REFBOMBED issues where the article just references random articles with the phrase "Eastern European" in it. NLeeuw (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. NLeeuw (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping @SunDawn, Hemiauchenia, Mzajac, and Bearian: for your consideration because you participated in the 2021 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern European people (and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern European identity) written by the same user. This AfD is a follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article lacks a fundamental underlying coherent concept. Its just a refbomb of random papers that happen to use vaguely similar terms. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - unlike the other deleted articles, there is at least a reason this could exist, but this article has no coherent whole. It's more of a synthesis. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has no more justification than Eastern European identity. Theoretically, a proper article might be written about both (not sure what it would look like, but I wouldn't exclude the possibility a priori). But in the current state, this one deserves as much WP:TNT as the previous. NLeeuw (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Teague

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

Teague fails WP:NBASIC and WP:GNG; I couldn't find any reliable sources with significant coverage of him, besides a Russellville, Arkansas mayor (which obviously isn't this subject). ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, although Teague isn't covered very much, I think we can attempt to salvage this article using a few sources from here first. GoldRomean (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I started this article on this award winning gymnast. Moondragon21 (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable gymnast who won a medal at the Trampoline Gymnastics World Championships and European Trampoline Championships. There are definitely sources out there [7][8]. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MoviesandandTelevisionFan's source and no doubt we could find a third one for GoldRomean's search too. This would satisfy GNG and NACTOR Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dhivehi Wikipedia

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

No non-primary sourcing. Sohom (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Maldives. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a subject that has been covered in-depth in reliable sources. Geschichte (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per @Sohom Datta and @Geschichte.

48JCL talk 17:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage. Interesting, we get to vote to delete one of the very sites we're editing on. But rules are rules. X (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 21:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Privateers

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unlikely to become notable, if the team is defunct. Unsourced (though I know that's probably fixable). Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Canada. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The team easily passes GNG due to substantial news coverage in Nova Scotia and the Maritimes. Here are a few of the more recent news on the team. [9][10][11][12][13] I question whether the nominator completed WP:BEFORE on this nomination. I'm baffled what is meant by "Unlikely to become notable, if the team is defunct". As per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, the article might be poorly sourced in its current state, but can easily be improved. Flibirigit (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed complete a before search. I found numerous news articles regarding the move of the team, all based on press releases. I found routine coverage, e.g. of matches. I found articles based on what a spokesperson for the team said, without WP:SECONDARY analysis. I found nothing that was WP:INDEPTH, WP:SECONDARY, WP:INDEPENDENT to satisfy GNG. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Flibirigit. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 07:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see a review of newly found sources to see if GNG is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Agreeing with Liz here, we also need clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 14:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unfortunate accusations against the nominator aside, there's nothing approaching significant coverage applied, linked above, or found during my reasonable BEFORE which renders this subject sufficiently notable for its own article. I see no evidence this can be improved. BusterD (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @BusterD: There was no intent to accuse anyone of anything. My only intent was to convey that I felt a BEFORE was not done. We simply disagree on the sources. I have nothing personal against @Curb Safe Charmer:. Best wishes and happy editing. Flibirigit (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Flibirigit: And that language would have been more appropriate to a civil disagreement, like AfD. "I-messages" are helpful because they're not so threatening. We must be able to argue freely, even sometimes beyond the bounds of reasonableness. Sometimes screaming is quite necessary. Give yourself permission to step over the line occasionally, if in doing so you might push our entire Wikipedia movement forward. IMHO, that's the heart of WP:IAR. I am proud to participate in a process in which civil disagreement makes us a stronger (and more cohesive) community. Nice to meet you. BusterD (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unfortunately I'm not convinced that the new sources linked here are enough to establish notability. They're all fairly routine, and the best sources are still almost entirely reliant on press releases or press conferences. CarringtonMist (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They have received enough reliable press to tell the story (i.e., meets GNG). Here's another article on their closure. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Road signs in Brunei

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

Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Road signs in Lesotho. It's a WP:NOTGALLERY violation apparently by intention. There are tons of these articles that don't appear to be attempts at creating an encyclopedia article at all, but are just making a space to put 100+ images. There's already a place for that, and it's on Commons. GMG ^talk 10:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Brunei. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All seem to be on commons:Category:SVG road signs in Brunei, and the one source on the page doesn't seem to support the cited information. CMD (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Part of a bundled AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this collection of images. There are other places for it. Try Wikimedia Commons. The article itself lacks substance. It is barely sourced, and what it does have is questionable. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Czech First League#Media coverage. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Czech First League broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, not a single source. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Czech Republic. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Czech First League as WP:ATD. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 09:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Czech First League#Media coverage. FromCzech (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided. How do "Delete" voters think about the possibility of a Redirect or Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Czech First League#Media coverage per WP:ATD as a plausible-ish search term. Ironically, that sub-section has more detail than the stand-alone article on the subject. It could do with some sourcing, though. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I agree with redirect as WP:ATD. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Czech First League#Media coverage. Unsourced list contains two rwos, Unneeded CFORK. Fails NLIST, no sources showing this has been discussed as a group by reliable sources. Nothing sourced, nothing to merge. // Timothy :: talk 18:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Swiss Super League broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Switzerland. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Super League broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are archived pages of primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and India. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nemzeti Bajnokság I broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Not a single source in any shape or form. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Hungary. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - similar case to List of Serie A broadcasters and List of Bundesliga broadcasters. No justification for a stand-alone article here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Lopes

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

Doesn't meet WP:FILMMAKER or WP:BIO. The subject has coverage only for winning a private island. No other significant coverage on his works or states any importance for an article. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 09:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 09:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:BLP1E. None of the sources are reliable and independent, except CBC, so by definition this isn't significant coverage. What's left is a single incident that has no lasting legacy or coverage. I add that we very frequently delete articles about producers, directors, and DJs, all of whome are run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only significant, secondary, independent sources are all rehashes of the same story and cover Lopes in the context of the competition he won. Simply participating in or winning such competitions, lotteries, and game shows does not make one notable. Per the CBC article, Lopes "makes video content for businesses by day and is a DJ at clubs and private parties by night". He is far from being a notable filmmaker or DJ, with 0 coverage of his "works". Mooonswimmer 18:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunarso

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

No significant coverage or importance on the subject to have an article. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 08:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 08:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. There is no allegation of notability. What have they done beyond working in business? Bearian (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being a president director of a prominent bank does not confer automatic notability. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anurag Sinha

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

I initially tagged this for UPE for cleanup but after it was challenged by two SPAs, and at the request of one, I dug further into cleanup. The issue is that the references, other than this, are not reliable to show notability. Everything is mentions, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, press releases, churnalism, interviews, or otherwise unreliable. I removed some WP:FAKEREFerences prior but kept everything else in tact so the AfD could be judged based on how it sits currently. CNMall41 (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Delhi, and Madhya Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41

I think you are indulging in provocation to prove you’re correct. Please refer this case to senior editors and administrators for opinion. My knowledge about Wikipedia rules is limited. However this nomination for deletion seems fishy. Hope fellow editors will objectively contribute to sort this, whatever is right.

Request to refer to the Talk Page of Anurag Sinha to understand the case. His notability and credibility is vouched and acknowledged.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixing001 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fixing001, Don't worry this ADF discussion will surely closed by an Administrator of Wikipedia. Grabup (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @CNMall41

I would really like to contest your decision to provocatively send the article for deletion, while I was engaging in a meaningful conversation with you in the talk page. I will also request the inclusion of other editors and administrators to have a look at this case as I feel that this step may have been influenced due to reasons while this could have been avoided certainly for an actor who has a valid presence and calibre in the indian films industry.

Please have a look at the references right from 2008 till 2023 where these references are attributed from TOI, Press Trust of India, ANI News, NDTV, Organisational bodies, Etimes, Recognised Production Houses and International Film Festivals, Directors and fellow actors from the industry of India.

While some citations may come from a list of as you call “Paid Media”, there is a plethora of other google search articles and references in the article where the subject is not in ‘Mentionary terms’, but actuality a major point of interest.

Articles by reputed journalists of India, like Mr Subhash K Jha, Mr Khalid Mohammad and other prominent journalists have done interviews and wrote articles on ‘Anurag Sinha’. His recent Best Actor Award in International Film Festivals is also merited by TOI and PTI, ANI News, The Week, Zee5 News etc.

While, you discredited the article and the subject 2 months earlier accusing of Paid Creation, why did you not send it for deletion then itself when proper cleaning of language and any inkling of promotional intent was also removed by myself.

I had only requested you remove the “paid template” and present any transactional proof made by the user/article subject for creating the page, to which there is still no evidence provided by you. You have stated the ‘creator of the page’ has been flagged, but that does not mean that all articles created by the creator are false and paid, when the merit of this particular artist/actor is recognised by a mass audience and people of his industry.

However, I again repeat that today seems out of hasty decision, you have altered the article by your edits which are not justified. This article is on my watchlist and some removals are uncalled and was not needed at all. While you also have wrongly exercised your rights to put templates and send the page for deletion. Why?

Also, for clarification of my interest in the article, I certainly am interested in the work of actors and indian film industry and will want to contribute positively towards it.

As a responsible Wikipedia editor, I again would address you to clean the page, if you find it dissatisfying. According to me, all current references are reliable third part sources that are not just mentioning, but are talking about the subject or acknowledging the achievements of the subject.

I trust this process and hopefully this matter will be justly resolved. I will also invite other editors and experienced editors to engage in its resolution.

Thanks Fixing001 (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article must be uploaded back and edited with supervision. The article subject is legit. DSTR123 (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that DSTR123 and Fixing001 might be the same individual, given that the DSTR123 account was created today following this nomination and has only posted this comment thus far. Grabup (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grabup:, They likely are. SPI filed here. I believe the image uploads are a pretty good trail of breadcrumbs. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Based on my checking, I've discovered that sources are only WP:NEWSORGINDIA and press releases, sponsored articles, and interview pieces can't establish notability at all. The individual clearly doesn't meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG due to a lack of comprehensive coverage on the subject. Grabup (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Keep’’’ - The article subject has a 16year career where he has recently won Best Actor Awards in his field at International Film Festivals in New Jersey and Toronto. The notability can’t be debated with the individual being working with premium indian production houses like Mukta Arts, Emmay Entertainment, Applause Entertainment, T Series etc in leading roles with directors and co-stars who are also having a sterling background.. like Subhash Ghai, Anil Kapoor, Nikkhil Advani, Shefali Shah, Purab Kohli etc. The article references are cited from the premier news agencies of indian media viz..Times of India, HT, Rediff, The Week, Press Trust of India, ANI News, NDTV, Money Control, The Print etc. Mostly all the articles in India media are cited with references from the above agencies, if that’s the case, we may need to delete every article in Indian Films section.

This article must be added with citations available in the public domain and be made available. It’s a KEEP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixing001 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC) struck sock vote --CNMall41 (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is enough information on public domain for the credibility of the actor. The article needs more citations. Not all artist must have a comprehensive coverage, consistent qualitative work over a sustained period with accreditation from international film festivals and other platforms must be taken in account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40E5:1041:EA04:B517:90B9:EDEE:D31E (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with various significant roles in notable productions (one for which he was nominated for a FF award; another that received minor awards; which also contributes to prove the roles were significant); his role in P.O.W. – Bandi Yuddh Ke can also be considered significant. So, at least 3. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As with other AfD's I have requested this, can you show me the specific references that show notability? Simply having "various significant roles in notable productions" does not grant notability, it only says they "may be considered notable." --CNMall41 (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The actor debuted in a leading role with one of the most renowned and controversial director of Indian Film Industry, Subhash Ghai where he was nominated for Best Actor at FilmFare Awards. He has a list of projects where he has worked in leading roles with premier directors like Nikkhil Advani Radhika Rao etc. He has exhibited credible performances in numerous productions, some of them being immensely popular and genuinely praised for acting performances, like the ones in Black & White (2008 Hindi film) Sanam Teri Kasam P.O.W. – Bandi Yuddh Ke Kaun Banegi Shikharwati Mannphodganj Ki Binny Shadow Assassins etc. The actor has demonstrated acting calibre at par with the likes of his co-actors like Anil Kapoor, Naseeruddin Shah Lara Dutta etc. There are references available on the public domain. For Shadow Assassins, he has won Best Actor Awards.

Here are just some of the articles that are published where the actor is talked and discussed in a positive prominent light and not merely in mentionary terms. This merely are a few articles from only one of the indian publications, Times of India, TOI Entertainment.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/kill-terrorism-not-the-terroristshubash/articleshow/2849557.cms?_gl
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/anurag-in-black-and-white/articleshow/2917175.cms?_gl
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/genres-dont-matter-says-anurag/articleshow/3184943.cms?_gl
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/i-think-i-can-handle-the-curiosityanurag/articleshow/2864389.cms?_gl
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/actor-anurag-sinha-to-marry-on-nov-19/articleshow/5156245.cms?_gl
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/anurag-sinha-wins-best-actor-award-feature-for-shadow-assassins-at-alternative-film-festival-toronto-altff-2023/articleshow/104649337.cms?_gl
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/subhash-ghai-feels-inspired/articleshow/3973118.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/star-plus-p-o-w-bandi-yuddh-ke-gets-3-new-faces/articleshow/56625506.cms?_gl
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/anil-is-jealous/articleshow/2787866.cms?_gl
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/another-honour-for-subhash-ghai/articleshow/3900541.cms?_gl

Again, all this issue of notability was only brought by the editor who flagged the article, when was requested on the Talk page to remove the paid templates as there was no citation of proof for payment by the artist in discussion for a period of two months or so. I still am not clear why is it happening here, where the article on this actor in discussion can easily be expanded with reliable reference and citations that are available on the public domain.

My perspective - The India media is suffering with the malady of copying and publishing information from one source to another and is suffocating genuine talents and films with the issue of paid marketing and publicity. If Wikipedia doesn’t provide a platform like its own of credible acknowledgement to authentic artists/talents, soon must find it surfeit with articles on Arts & Entertainment , that are already influenced and published under bias and discreet funding from production houses. Why are we not calling out the ones overtly known ? As for this article, this feels like a pitiful hassling over an unjust removal of a credible and relevant indian talent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Centrepiece12 (talk • contribs) struck sock vote Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Times of India is totally not reliable when it comes to BLP. They are known for their paid editing and promotional material. See WP:TOI and WP:RSN archives. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For policy based input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I went through all the sources cited in the article. Can't find any that satisfy reliability + independence + significant coverage. Most of the sources are about the movies the subject played a role in, with trivial mentions of him interspersed. I doubt the notability of the movies too, These are sponsored stories [14][15]. This is an interview. So not WP:IS. Alternative Film Festival best actor is not a significant award or honor. The article is just deliberate and malicious refbombing. — hako9 (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The article must be reassessed. The references are from the most read publication of India, TOI. Barring a few, the references are credible enough to abide by WP:NACTOR. The actor has worked as protagonists in films that have been notably popular. The present article is acceptably consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40d2:103a:b4e6:2d76:969:3718:41d3 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'm not sure about determining consensus as I see editors I respect on both sides of this debate along with a lot of IPs and newcomers. Can we get an essential THREE that can be agreed upon instead of posting dozens of links to bad quality sources? Also editors are advised they need to sign all of their comments with their signatures.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't know where all the "keep" votes are coming from. Anyways, not enough reliable sourcing to establish notability, and there is possible paid editing. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 12:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor and unreliable sources. The actor's work has not been significant and unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. RangersRus (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The actor has been honoured with Best Actor awards at Film Festivals and nominated for best actor award at Filmfare, India. Sources as checked are abiding to WP:SIGCOV with sources being secondary and abiding by independence of the subject.References are found to be consistent.References that are not paid and independent sources.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/anurag-sinha-wins-best-actor-award-feature-for-shadow-assassins-at-alternative-film-festival-toronto-altff-2023/amp_articleshow/104649337.cms

https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/bollywood/story/anurag-sinha-not-big-b-to-play-sarabjit-in-subhash-ghais-next-215349-2013-10-23

https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/striking-it-hot-with-black-and-white/story-snmGGlHB2ytv86PqxNxauN.html

https://www.deccanherald.com/amp/story/entertainment/anurag-sinha-marry-girlfriend-nov-2568467

https://www.hindustantimes.com/bollywood/subhash-ghai-s-sarabjit-biopic-to-have-newbie-anurag-sinha-as-lead/story-WyHBMQcK21qJf8zcb0mstL_amp.html

https://www.ndtv.com/entertainment/anurag-sinha-to-play-sarabjit-in-subhash-ghais-next-614525/amp/1

The article can be expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40E4:1047:11C:F8F7:A83:EA0A:22DF (talk)

Same person with a similar IP address rang is repeatedly commenting and voting to Keep the article. The sources provided only offer passing mentions and lack in-depth coverage of the subject. The Times of India is considered unreliable for establishing notability. Probably sockpuppet of @Fixing001. Grabup (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not significant coverage. And read WP:SYNDICATED before posting gazillion sources that are from IANS churnalism. — hako9 (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is satisfactorily credible and seems factual to the achievements of the actor. The actor has worked in lead roles in successful Indian films and shows with respectable directors and production houses. Confirms to WP:NPACTOR WP:GNG. Many of the references are reliable and credible sources of information in the Indian media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40C4:101D:80A8:8000:0:0:0 (talk • contribs)

Again, vote from the same IP range, with the same type of comment, and without providing any sources. This AfD is being targeted by the creator or a team who were paid to retain the article, or the subject himself is doing this. These IP votes should be avoided. GrabUp - Talk 13:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found similar, listings, name mentions, promo, nothing that meets WP:SIRS. BLPs require strong independent reliable sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 12:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paulin Basinga

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

Appears PROMO. I don't see articles about this individual, only interviews or use of him as an expert on xyz health topic in various media. Odd that all sourcing here is from Nigeria, but none in the home country, possible "pay to publish" as we see typically in Nigerian media. I have my concerns, bringing ti AfD to discuss. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Rwanda. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose!

In the beginning, I read about him and his works. For clarification, it may seem to be promo but factually it is not.

In facts, connectively, I read that in the home country he was a university lecturer, researcher and consultant. These can be limits to his articles other than interviews or use of him as an expert. But I considered it notable because he featured on international articles including those of World Bank and BMGF. It is referenced that later on, he has featured on other institutions such as Global Citizen and UGHE.

I do not see any problem with sources from Nigeria because based on reliable sources, it shows that his work in leadership role at BMGF were about Africa and the biggest office there was in Nigeria.

However, If we test him in Rwanda, below are some articles about him but there are in Kinyarwanda;

Thanks. 6eeWikiUser (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b, a drive-by comment: are you insinuating that "pay-to-publish" determines the nature of Nigeria media. I can't see much coverage if not two from Nigerian source. Don't you think it's below the belt?
Back to deletion discussion! — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, we see it all too often here in AfD; Nigerian and Indian media seem to have a history of publishing iffy articles on people with no relation to the country. When I see an article that's only sourced to Nigerian media when the subject doesn't have a connection to the country (or a partial connection), it's a red flag. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never knew the story about Nigerian and Indian media, and I think we should not easily globalize because from this subject, mathematically, the sources from Nigerian media are less than 30%. 6eeWikiUser (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is sufficient coverage, and it does not matter which country's media covers it (or the language) as long as the refs ares reliable and verifiable, and there is sufficient coverage that meets our notability guidelines, and merits a stand-alone article, which this article does. Generalising and casting aspersions on a developing country's media is most unhelpful, and is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, and its goal in fighting against Wikipedia:Systemic bias. We do not know whether subject paid for it or not, and without facts, we should be mindful of casting aspersions on the credibility of others. It it is most unhelpful, and I hope the nom strike out that comment in their nomination and the response to Safari Scribe. I totally agree with Safari Scribe. It is unwarranted and below the belt.Tamsier (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I have no confidence about a consensus here. Critiquing media from specific countries needn't be a slam against a nationality, just a comment on the prevalence of paid/sponsored journalism is particular countries. I know we have list of Indian sources that don't meet Wikipedia standards for independence and editorial rigor.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete heavily refbombed with sources which are interviews, or not independent, or passing mentions. The subject has a very successful career but that is not sufficient basis for an encyclopedia article. Mccapra (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Mccapra. In above replies I mentioned that while creating the page I read that more time of his career he was a university lecturer, researcher and consultant this means those positions could be limits to his articles other than interviews or use of him as an expert. I considered his interviews strong because he was advising in notable and reliable magazines and talking about broad topics including deadliest diseases like Ebola, HIV and Polio among others. However, he has some sources which are not added, if inserting them now can make it any better be kind enough to let me know. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing is consistent with the pay-to-publish promotional content seen in Nigerian media. Not seeing GNG here. JoelleJay (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @JoelleJay, all the content seen in Nigerian media are from notable magazines including The Guardian (Nigeria), Premium Times, and The Nation (Nigeria). While reading Wikipedia notability guidelines I understood that it does not matter which country's media covers it (or the language) as long as the refs are reliable and verifiable. Why are you not seeing GNG here? 12eeWikiUser (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sourcing is unimpressive but, more importantly, it does not establish notability. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings,

It will be somehow hard for me to understand that subject is not notable while all source providers I used (18) have Wikipedia pages, please check starting from Evans School of Public Policy and Governance up to Guttmacher Institute. Otherwise, what is notability? 12eeWikiUser (talk) 06:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Dror

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. References are atrocious and consist mostly interviews, passing mentions and tangenital links and profiles. scope_creep^Talk 14:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sourcing meets WP:GNG. --Omer Toledano (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--היידן (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has at least 3 solid GNG references. I didn't review all 57 references, but if some or even many have the problems described in the nom, that is not a reason to delete the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000, Would you care to list your three "solid" references? Regards. X (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sofiblum (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:SPA and has made no other contributions to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Account has made thousands of edits on the Hebrew Wikipedia though. Doesn't seem like a problem Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know the problem because you only started in Afd on the 2 May 2024 and you've never written any large articles of consequence to discover the problem. The reason its a problem is because the English Wikipedia has a much higher standard of notability requirements that most of other wikipedias and that includes the Hebrew Wikipedia. The reason for that is the paid-editing hassle that began in 2008 and ran for many years before it was fixed, that eventually led to much improvement in the BLP notability criteria, to a much higher standard than other Wikipedias. So that is reason for it. So for that editor to turn up, who hasn't edited any length on Wikipedia and doesn't know criteria is a real problem. While anybody can turn up and !vote, the statistical chance of somebody from the Hebrew wikipedia, coming to en Wikipedia, selecting this article and then coming to the Afd, minutes after I posted it, is almost zero. It does not happen. It indicates canvassing, orchestration, which is illegal on Wikipedia. It indicates that the group is working against Wikipedia, breaking the Terms of Use, and its is unfair and downright crass. scope_creep^Talk 17:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Politics, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll look at the references, all of them this weekend, including the 3 supposed good references on a 30k article with close to 60 references, suffering from WP:CITEKILL. scope_creep^Talk 15:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep a very well known docial activist who had asignificant impact on the protests in Israel Hila Livne (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep. A known activist and the article has enough references. Danny-w (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor hasn't edited for months and magically appears now for some reason. scope_creep^Talk 17:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor has nearly 50k edits on Hebrew wikipedia, and stated that they translate a lot of articles, quite likely just on their watchlist Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason described above. Having 50k editor on another Wikipedia doesn't for squant in Afd. The editor took this stance in a previous Afd when the same spurious argument was made, a quantitive rather than qualitive argument. Numbers of reference do not count and haven't counted for more than decade, unless its WP:THREE. Its an argument to avoid in Afd, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. scope_creep^Talk 17:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems to be fine on WP:GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Seems to a lot of canvassing going on here, from Hebrew speaking Jewish editors again, espousing the same arguments I've heard before about being fanstastically well known and article has enough references. We will find out. scope_creep^Talk 16:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems as though tag teaming is going on. I might have to take you all to WP:ANI, including the Hebrew admin, except North8000. This behaviour is probably disruptive. scope_creep^Talk 17:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strike your comment, which violates WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF. The religion and nationality of other editors is irrelevant, as are evidence-free charges of canvassing. Longhornsg (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scope creep: I would like to repeat Longhornsg's request. Strike your comment. It comes across as ad hominem and racist. It has no place in an AfD. You have made several additional comments to this AfD without addressing it. Do not continue to comment here while failing to address this. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not meant to be racist. I've struck the comment, but it still looks like canvassing and this is the 20th Afd where I've seen this behaviour. scope_creep^Talk 07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Are all the sources perfect? Absolutely not, the article needs work. Does coverage of the article topic in RS satisfy WP:GNG? Yes. Longhornsg (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was reviewed at Afc by 4 seperate editors who found it wanting before I rejected it. To say it needs work, is the understatement of the century. scope_creep^Talk 17:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep, seconding that. As an AFC reviewer myself, I don't think articles like this one would have or should have gotten through. And it didn't by anyone from AFC, but someone totally independent of it all of a sudden moved the draft to main space. I'd personally strongly discourage moving pages that are ongoing AFC material/submission. It defeats the entire purpose of the project, especially so when it was declined multiple times and clearly had, still has a lot of issues. AFC was started for quality control and reducing AFD's like this. X (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-known activist. The very fact that he has been interviewed repeatedly by the mainstream press is convincing evidence of notability. Non-notable people are not sought for interviews. Moreover, there is no rule against using the content of interviews in BLPs. The strictest rule is WP:ABOUTSELF which allows such material. Zero^talk 14:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your a bit out of date, aren't you. Certainly your allowed to use interviews in biographical article, but per consensus there must be other supporting coverage. It is a list of interviews and nothing else. Anybody can get interviewed by anybody and make a list of interviews. scope_creep^Talk 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply not true that anyone can be interviewed multiple times by the press. And you need to read WP:BLUDGEON (and learn how to spell "you're"). Zero^talk 15:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets looks at the references, to find these three elusive WP:SECONDARY sources.

Ref 1 [16] This is exclusive interview. Not independent.
Ref 2 [17] This is contributor. Its non-rs.
Ref 3 Unable to see it at the moment.
Ref 4 [18] This is another interview. Not independent.
Ref 5 [19] This is another interview style PR business article. Not independent.
Ref 6 [20] This is from a press-release. It is non-rs.
Ref 7 [21] Ami Dror, founder. That is not independent.
Ref 8 [22] Non-notable trade award. A small profile on Dror.
Ref 9 [23] His business is thrilled to annouce. A press-release. Non-RS.
Ref 10 [24] Another press-release Non-RS.
Ref 11 [25] An interview. Not independent.
Ref 12 [26] Business interview. It is not independent.
Ref 13 [27] Another interview. Not independent.
Ref 14 404
Ref 15 [28] A radio interview. Not independent.
Ref 16 Unable to view it.

Out of the 15 references in the first block, the majority of which are interviews. So nothing to prove any long term viability for this WP:BLP article. scope_creep^Talk 18:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Following references are solid and satisfy WP:GNG:

Ref 32 [29] - "Shine News" in Shanghai
Ref 33 [30] (Hebrew) - in Calcalist
Ref 30 [31] - in Israel21c

Kindly retract your deletion request. --Omer Toledano (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting these @Omer Toledano:. I will take a look at them.

Ref 32 This is a business interview style article for a new business by Dror, based in Shanghai. It is not idependent.
Ref 33 This is also a business style interview with Dror that comes under WP:NCORP as part of PR branding drive for his new company in Shanghai. It is not independent either. Its is him talking.
Ref 30 This is another PR style article with no byline, promoting the business. It is not independent.

None of these are independent. They are not valid sources for a WP:THREE exercise. This is a WP:BLP tha must pass WP:BIO to remain on Wikipedia. WP:BLP states, "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Not one of these 19 sources can satisfy notability to prove it. They are not independent, they are not in-depth and they are not significant. I'll look at the second block. scope_creep^Talk 19:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They satisfy WP:GNG and that is sufficient enough. Kindly retract your deletion request. --Omer Toledano (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:

Comment Some discussions mentioned requirements from WP:NCORP WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. These are requirements for using special Notability Guideline "way in" for Companies/Organizations. This is an article about a person, not a company or organization. The applicable standards would be to pass either the sourcing WP:GNG (the center of the discussion here) or the people SNG Wikipedia:Notability (people) (not discussed here). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: The article mixes WP:BLP and promotes a stong business content via PR which are pure spam links and that one the reason that it was repeatedly declined continuously on WP:AFC. It has been established practice since about 2018 and is consensus to note these when it fails a policy, even if its WP:NCORP. The PR spam link reference make up a tiny number, less than 3-5% of the total. There not independent. scope_creep^Talk 19:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for posting these @Omer Toledano: in the spirit they are intended. I will take a look at them.

Ref 32 This is a business interview style article for a new business by Dror, based in Shanghai. It is a promotional PR piece and is not independent.It is a WP:SPS source.
Ref 33 This is also a business style interview with Dror that comes under WP:NCORP as part of PR branding drive for his new company in Shanghai. It is not independent either.
Ref 30 This is another PR style article with no byline, promoting the business. It is non-rs.

None of these are independent. They are not valid sources for a WP:THREE exercise. This is a WP:BLP tha must pass WP:BIO to remain on Wikipedia. WP:BLP states, "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Not one of these 19 sources can satisfy notability to prove it. They are not independent, they are not in-depth and they are not significant. I'll look at the second block. scope_creep^Talk 19:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:

Ref 17 [32] Another interview. Its not independent.
Ref 18 [33] Another interview. Seems he was the bodyguard of Netanyahu.
Ref 19 Non-rs
Ref 20 Non-rs
Ref 21 Unable to view it
Ref 22 [34] Its a passing mention.
Ref 23 Non-rs
Ref 24 [35] It is a profile. It is junk social media. Non-rs.
Ref 25 [36] Essentially a passing mention.
Ref 27 [37] "Ami Dror, said in an interview with CNET" Not independent.
Ref 28 [38] Doesn't mention him.
Ref 29 [39] It is a passing mention and is not significant.
Ref 30 Duplicate of above. PR
Ref 31 [40] A small profile. Not significant.
Ref 32 Described above as PR that fails. It is a WP:SPS source.
Ref 34 Non-rs
Ref 35 [41] That is a press-release. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 36 [42] That is a routine annoucenent of partnership that fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

So another block of junk reference. Not one of them is a WP:SECONDARY source. Some passing mentions, lots of interviews, a lot of business PR and not one that satisfies WP:BIO or WP:SIGCOV. The article is a complete crock. (edit conflict) scope_creep^Talk 19:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a rest and stop WP:BADGERING. Longhornsg (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There has been linking to essays, guidelines, and policies which I feel in several cases has been incorrect regarding what they are, their applicability (including the context of where they came from) and interpretations of them. Other than to note that, I don't plan to get deeper in on them individually. IMO the core question is whether the topic/article has the sources to comply with a customary application of WP:GNG Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed the WP:NCORP mentions per discussion, although the businesses are heavily promoted in the article. The rest of the reference in the 3rd tranche are of equally poor references, made up of profiles, interviews, podcast and lots of non-rs refs. It none of secondary sourcing needed to prove the person is notable per WP:BIO. Of the three criteria in WP:BIO, this person fails all of them. Up until Dror started to protest which was quite recent, he was invisible. Its all of the moment. scope_creep^Talk 14:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an AFC reviewer myself, I don't think articles like this one would have or should have gotten through. And it didn't by anyone from AFC, but someone totally independent of it all of a sudden moved the draft to main space. I'd personally strongly discourage moving pages (that can be considered contentious or have issues) that are ongoing AFC material/submission. It defeats the entire purpose of the project, especially so when it was declined multiple times and clearly had, still has a lot of issues. AFC was started for quality control and reducing AFD's like this.

Nonetheless, I must admit this is one of the strangest AFD's I've come across. So many things here feels convoluted and fishy. X (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since it's come up a couple times there's one thing which I'd like to address (given that I moved the article into article space.) which is the multiple prior rejections at AFC. I've done a few thousand NPP reviews and I'd guess taken more than 100 articles to AFD so I'm no pushover. I'm also an AFC reviewer, but ~95% of the reviewing I do is NPP. (I didn't use the AFC tools available to me for the move on this one.) The official AFC criteria for acceptance is that it has a reasonable chance of surviving an AFD. There has been considerable discussion of this at AFC talk, including concern that some AFC reviewers were declining based on criteria other than this. And the relevant AFD criteria is wp:notability which requires that it pass either a relevant SNG or the sourcing GNG. The SNG criteria has not been invoked leaving the sourcing GNG as the criteria. And this requires typically 2 GNG references. The first AFC decline/ draftifying in essence said that they looked at a sampling of about 10 (of the many dozen references) and there weren't GNG references in that sampling. The criteria is that it has GNG references, and a look at only 20% of the references does not determine that they don't exist. The subsequent reviews not only did not make such an analysis, they simply referred to the first decline in essence saying "no change since the first decline". IMO it has suitable GNG references, and much stronger than the typical standard at AFD, which is the basis for my actions, just trying to do the correct thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment/response. However, I've asked you earlier in the thread to care to list at least 3 sources which you've found/consider the best? Regards. X (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is a clear majority of editors who want to Keep this article, there are editors who believe the sources do not establish GNG with SIGCOV so this isn't a slamdunk close. If editors arguing to Keep this article could find more significant sources, this discussion might be closed relatively soon. But this is not a Vote Count.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. Desertarun (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both for what should be happenning here and also for where I want to invest my scarce wiki minutes, IMO this needs to be about folks determining whether or not suitable (to a customary degree of rigorousness) GNG sources exist, rather than an analysis of my review. For folks making that determination, there's a lot to look through in the article and elsewhere; here's a few places they might want to start: [43] [44] [45] . Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have made a quantitive versus a qualitive argument in this comment and the last comment. Wikipedia strives for quality at every level and for some reason, you decided to support this article even when 4 other AFC editors in good standing decided it was junk. You have rationalised somehow that those other editors didn't make a proper WP:BEFORE review, before declining which is both disengengous and a failure of WP:AGF. Your essentially stating they have a lower standard of reviewing at AFC than yourself, yet you can't identify here what is good source amongst all these low quality sources and offer 3 paid for PR sources as though they valid, the best there is. It is an extremly poor argument for a supposed NPP reviewer in good standing, that fails WP:AGF in disparaging four good editors, one of which is myself who has written close to 750 articles (you have written 17 small article) and has almost twice the number of edits as you. Current consensus regarding WP:THREE, which changed last summer at a WP:RFA and is now considered best practice, is three WP:SECONDARY reference. Even though you happen to provide three reference for other editors to examine, which are extremely poor. I don't have confidence in you as an NPP reviewer. Lets looks at these references:

[46] This has video shot by the Shine company, where Dror does an another interview. It is classic PR where he WP:PUFF's himself up. That is not independent.
[47] The images come from Leaplearner which is Dror's company. It is PR and is not independent, failing the criteria.
[48] The images here have been provided by Dror. Its states it clearly. It is more PR and is not independent. His business partner states: "Hussein tells ISRAEL21c. “People like us have a responsibility to do something big." That is not idependent either. Its is a busines PR article. Its may be non-profit but it still not independent. scope_creep^Talk 17:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far no indepth, secondary, independent coverage has been offerered. scope_creep^Talk 18:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with many many elements in your post, include IMO mischaracterizations, ad hominem approaches and many which I consider to be out of bounds regarding Wikipedia behavior. It's not my MO to pursue such things. I'm not going to engage further on that and am content to let others decide on this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One quick exxtra note, having images supplied by or credited to the person in the image is common, not something that deprecates the published piece that it is used in. North8000 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article feels as odd as this AfD, to be honest. From a business point of view, I'd be a clear delete - I agree with scope_creep's analysis of the WP:THREE sources presented by North8000. It does seem like he could be a notable protestor, but the best-looking links I can see are either Youtube videos or interviews, not significant coverage. And there looks like some paywalled articles I can't access which might be significant coverage. I wouldn't have accepted this at AfC, it needs a complete re-write, it reads like it's written close to the subject, it's badly source-bombed, but it's not clearly not notable. I'm really not sure how to !vote here on notability grounds but notability isn't clear from the time I've spent parsing it, but if you made me make a decision about this one I'd draftify it. SportingFlyer T·C 04:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From where did you get the idea that interviews are not significant coverage? How many non-notable people are regularly sought for interviews? Moreover, what someone says about themself in a interview is covered by WP:ABOUTSELF. Zero^talk 07:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews aren't significant coverage for WP:BLP's. Interviews can't prove notability for BLP's and that has been consensus for more than a decade. They are WP:PRIMARY sources. I don't know where you get this idea that is both misleading and disengenous that WP:ABOUTSELF seems to trump WP:BLP and WP:BIO. It is a complete of misreading of policy and completely out of date. I've done 1000's of Afd and I've never read anybody making a statement like that. Never seen it mention once. More so, concering your comment above, We live in the age of internet and youtube where folk with millions of followers get interviewed on the most banal things and that is seen by quanities of people that even in the golden age of mainstream press in the 1940-60's, could never compare. It is a false argument. There is no analysis here to show Dror has lasting notable, by secondary sources, the standard way of measurement of notability for people. It's Dror showing up at the camera and talking, for every reference. Its all surface and no depth. scope_creep^Talk 08:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all applications of WP:ABOUTSELF are to primary sources, so that's not a valid argument. (Anyway, that is about the reliability of the content of the interview, which is different from the reliability of the interview itself.) As for interviews, it is not the mere fact of an interview that proves notability but the independence of the venue and the reason for the interview. If a journalist goes to an event and interviews whoever happens to be there, that obviously does not indicate notability. Nor does an interview sponsored by the interviewee. But if a journalist specifically seeks out a particular person to interview for publication, that is an obvious case of notability indicated by an independent reliable source. The independent reliable source in this case is the journalist and their news outlet. Notability is also indicated if the journalist's report emphasises the notability. So it is incorrect to just dismiss interviews out of hand; instead they have to be examined for their circumstances. I don't see any such examination here. For example, dismissing this as non-independent as you did is wrong unless Judy Maltz works for Ami Dror. By the way, your signature is ugly and visually annoying. Zero^talk 10:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So your saying the newspaper and the journalist in this case are somehow exceptional and should be reliable in this instance, even though time and history has shown that argument to be be wholly false, in any number of ways, i.e. subject to human vagaries of corruption, incomeptence and all the other problems that beset humanity, human bias and political favour. There is no basis argument for that on Wikipedia. This is another curious and unusual fringe argument that I've not seen. For me, its never been the channel nor the venue that is important but the source that provides the information and whether another source reflects that information, making it uniquely idependent of the first, that is important in WP:V. That is whole reason for WP:SECONDARY sources. The argument has been reinforced at every level in my whole Wikipedia existance, right back to 2005. Its has no validity. scope_creep^Talk 11:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only time I seen that argument is in talk pages when its been used to support using some information like the date of birth taken from a twitter message or linkedin profile, not for a mainstream BLP article. scope_creep^Talk 11:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a logic error in confusing the reliability of an interview article (which means the interview is correctly reported) with the reliability of the interview content (which means the person being interviewed told the truth). There is no contradiction in a reliable interview article quoting the interviewee telling lies. The notability tick is placed if the interview article is reliable. Articles by journalists in respectable newspapers are one of the sources most commonly accepted as reliable in WP. In this example, as Haaretz has always been considered reliable, this is assumed to be a reliable report. Whether the things that Dror told the journalist are reliable is irrelevant for notability and thus irrelevant for AfD. (I would be happy to cite Haaretz in our article with attribution to Dror, but that's another argument.) Incidentally, I was already an admin when you joined WP so you won't get anywhere with the longevity argument. Zero^talk 12:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is complete nonsense. Yes, its true that newspapers are generally a good source, I use them all the time, but that covenant only holds when when there has been research by the journalist to construct the article not to turn up and ask a few questions of the interviewee and convey it verbatim. To say such a statement makes me question your competence. It is a not question of reliablity anyway. I never questioned that aspect in all the comments above. The problem is independence. There is not a single piece of information here that doesn't come directly from Dror. Thereis no filter. There is no analysis or verification from any other source as far as I can see. scope_creep^Talk 07:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact you have no idea how much background research was done by the journalist for that article, and you brought no evidence for its unreliability. You just asserted it. Zero^talk 08:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be attempting to put words in my mouth, for the second time. I never made any mention of reliability in any argument. The problem is there is no corroborating evidence to show this individual is notable, nothing. Its all comes from him talking. All of it. Its a question of independence, not reliability. Interviews don't add up to squat. I can't make any progress with you. I suspect your involved somehow with your Freudian slip above, saying "our" article. Your views are diametrically opposed to the majority of folk who write content of Wikipedia and expect to work inside consensus. I'll not make any other comments to you, from this point forward. scope_creep^Talk 14:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When reviewing articles about people for GNG, I always discount interviews as non-secondary sources as required by GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 07:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to avoid the context creep which might be starting, here was the context of me mentioning those three sources. "IMO this needs to be about folks determining whether or not suitable (to a customary degree of rigorousness) GNG sources exist.....For folks making that determination, there's a lot to look through in the article and elsewhere; here's a few places they might want to start:" So it was nothing more than that, it was not explanation of my own overall opinion on "whether or not suitable (to a customary degree of rigorousness) GNG sources exist" North8000 (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, my opinion on an answer to that question is a strong "yes". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I see WP:THREE invoked I always assume it's because the three sources presented clearly pass GNG, which I do not believe was the case (they all just sort of quoted him.) As I noted I'm not really sure where to fall on this, but if there are three that stood out which clearly pass GNG, I'd be happy to switch my !vote to a keep. SportingFlyer T·C 07:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just clarifying, I did not bring up that essay, nor say that my assessment was based just on those three. It is based on going through a few thousand articles during NPP reviews and taking about 100 to AFD. GNG sourcing in this article is far stronger than a typical kept bio article; conversely criteria and application advocated by someone here would have about 3/4 of Wikipedia's bio articles deleted. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you didn't do a WP:BEFORE on it. Your joking? scope_creep^Talk 14:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your insulting comment is doubly out of line. WP:BEFORE refers to person doing the AFD which is you. Secondly, I never said that anything that you could derive that statement from, even if it was applicable to me (which it isn't). You need to ease up on things regarding other editors here, to put it mildly. North8000 (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with that statement on 3/4ths of bios being deleted based on these "stricter" standards. The sourcing for this particular article just isn't that great. SportingFlyer T·C 17:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Look pretty WP:GNG solid to me:

Ref 3 [49] - Haaretz
Ref 32 [50] - "Shine News" in Shanghai
Ref 33 [51] (Hebrew) - in Calcalist
Ref 30 [52] - in Israel21c

--Omer Toledano (talk) Omer Toledano (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all interviews with the subject, they don't pass the secondary prong of WP:GNG, and only Ref 3 is different from the one North8000 presented. They're also all business interviews, which can be solicited by subjects for marketing purposes (not insinuating this is the case, and WP:NCORP doesn't apply because it's a biography, but similar precautions need to be taken here). If he passes WP:GNG, it's likely because he's been covered independently as a protestor. SportingFlyer T·C 17:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omert33, Ref 3 (Haaretz) is mostly an interview with 2 short paragraphs of texts followed up by primary elements, it's just him talking about himself and his activities. Ref 32 (Shine News) is also more of the same. Ref 33 (Calcalist), is even a more prevalent interview, from the starting paragraph. Ref 30 (Israel21c) is also like the rest here. X (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: The "3/4" was just my off the cuff guess. On your last point, I never said that the GNG sourcing on this article was great, just stronger than average. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Added references (notability):

Ref 14 (current) [53] - The Times of Israel
Ref 36 (current) [54] - TechCrunch

-- Omer Toledano (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these are passing mentions and Techcrunch is trash. Nobody uses it except UPE editors. Both of the again are not independent, more evidence to show that it all comes from Dror. scope_creep^Talk 12:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gonna keep this short since we're at the 7-day deadline, but I find myself agreeing with scope_creep's source analysis more than anyone else's. The sources presented by Omert33 are passing mentions or not independent. Interviews usually are not independent from the subject, and they lack the kind of analysis and critical assessment we usually find in WP:RS. A final thank you to the closer who decided to reopen this to let me !vote. To the nominator, consider a renomination with a source assessment table if you choose to renominate this. Pilaz (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I am not convinced by any of the 'keep' arguments above. There's some vague waving at GNG by a number of participants (importantly, note, this does not include North8000, who has engaged in meaningful discussion regarding GNG to justify their position), but when asked to present sources that meet the GNG standard, I agree with scope_creep's analysis of any such sources presented in response. Beyond that, there are a number of straight votes (eg. היידן, Sofiblum) and other arguments to avoid that I'm sure will be discarded by an experienced closer (eg. "a very well known docial activist who had asignificant impact on the protests in Israel", "A known activist and the article has enough references"). I also do not accept that being interviewed contributes to GNG (they are acceptable sources for information, yes, but do not contribute to assessing notability), and community consensus at deletion discussions in recent times has generally also found in this manner (WP:PRIMARY explicitly notes this consensus in a footnote). I agree with North8000 that this should be judged against GNG rather than NCORP, although I understand scope_creep's point that there is a strong mix of CORP about this article - but ultimately it is a biography and I agree with North8000 more on this. Daniel (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. It's unanimous. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina M. Barkume

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

Rejected speedy deletion. Non notable academic. Fails GNG, WP:NACADEMIC Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Astronomy. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After a 2008 PhD, she has no non-student publications in astronomy (there is one on social media monitoring with many authors and low citations). She does not appear to have a subsequent academic career of any note, and instead has been working for Meta (for which she has no significant publicity). Her best first-author student paper, "Water ice on the satellite of Kuiper belt object 2003 EL61", has only double-digit citations, not enough to make a case that she was such an exceptional student as to be notable through her student work. So although I agree with the A7 decline (the bar is very low for that) I do not think she can be notable through WP:PROF nor through WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the analysis of academic publications above. For other AfD reviewers interested in more context, there seem to be some brief mentions in various outlets from 2006 and 2007, e.g., these Sky & Telescope articles from April and October 2006, this AAS meeting brief from October, and this New York Times article from March 2007. Best, Bridget (talk) 07:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, I think you meant to link this AAAS article, which mentions her, while the one you linked does not. BhamBoi (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nice summary by David Eppstein. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not satisfy WP:NPROF; discovery has not received significant coverage. Qflib (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge Cup semi final

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

Apparently I have to use AfD for this: I think this article should be moved to draftspace as it as the potential to be a good article similar to FA Cup semi-finals. However it is currently incomplete, unreferenced, and is not fit for the mainspace. Mn1548 (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2024 (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/2024 April 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Rugby league, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page has been unreferenced since its creation in 2016. It's more likely that, if sent to draft space, it ends up being G13 deleted in 6 months time anyways. I'd prefer the matter of this get addressed here instead of being draftified and deleted in 6 months. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fair point. Another user has suggested deletion in a previous discussion. My preference is to move article to draft but I'm also not opposed to deletion as article can always be remade at a later date. My main issue with the article currently is not that it is unreferenced but rather is is incomplete in the sense that the list is missing everything from 1898 to 1979. Mn1548 (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Semi finals are not notable enough for a stand-alone article. I PROD'd this a while ago, but it was contested with an WP:OSE argument (i.e. FA Cup semi-finals exists, so this article should too). Even if the article were improved, I'm not convinced it is notable enough to pass WP:LISTN. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this point. While I think this article could be made to the standard of the FA Cup article, the reality is football will always have more coverage than rugby league, so finding enough secondary sources might be problematic for it to pass as a stand alone list. Mn1548 (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. But the nominator is suggesting draftification, is that option acceptable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Once again, this AFD needs more participation from editors, weighing in with their assessments of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this sourceless set of tables with nearly no content to the actual article and no indication of notability for these particular semi finals. Wikipedia is not the place for indiscriminate lists or trivia. A good draftify argument might persuade me, but right now I see nothing to gain by sending it to draft space. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I count two delete !votes - one from the nominator and one from Mn1548 ("if references can't be found...") - which I count as "delete" on the basis the nomination has been open for two weeks with no new references being added. No arguments in favour of keeping. We'd prefer more involvement but 2 weeks is long enough and the decision from those who contributed seems unanimous. Waggers TALK 14:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Holker

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an English rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were transactional announcements (1, 2, 3) and this confirms he was out of the sport by 2016. JTtheOG (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided: Should be expanded as a Super League player, but if refererences can't be found then there is insufficient coverage to keep the article. Mn1548 (talk) 09:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll be a little blunt here but "neutral" or "undecided" comments don't help closers come to a closure decision.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Ultimately, User:BusterD is correct, sources must be present in the article or brought into the discussion. A "There must be sources" attitude could be used to justify an article on any subject imaginable. We have to deal with information available now, that exist during the course of this discussion, not at a hypothetical future time. This deletion doesn't disallow the future creation of this article should adequate sources be located. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andras de Lisocky

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

Fails WP:NATHLETE, WP:GNG. Only source included is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Colombia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think WP:NATHLETE is not the appropriate policy because de Lisocky is not a track and field sportsman, road racer, or cross country runner. De Lisocky is a gold medalist at a major international competition, so I do believe that we can be confident that contemporary coverage must exist. Finding those newspapers / other sources may be difficult, but we have to at least put in an effort. --Habst (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Bolivarian Games is not a major international competition. It is a smaller event with 6 participating countries. The Pan American Games would be the major competition in this case. Geschichte (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte, how is the Pan American Games relevant to this deletion discussion, because the athlete did not participate there? I agree that the Pan Ams are also a major international competition, but there is no rule that there has to be only one major competition in the world. For someone from Colombia, the Bolivarian Games are certainly one of the biggest competitions an athlete could win outside of the Olympics (which he also competed in). Thanks, --Habst (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant because you claimed that he is a "gold medalist at a major international competition", which is an uncorroborated claim made by an anonymous person on the Internet, i.e. you. The South American Games also has sailing and is a lot bigger in scope than the Bolivarian Games. Geschichte (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte, thanks for your response. Both the Pan American Games and the South American Games are also major international competitions, but their existence does not invalidate the fact that the Bolivarian Games are, as well, a major competition. To qualify this with a source, see Rengifo, Lisandro Abel (2022-06-26). "Juegos Bolivarianos: ¿sí tienen la importancia que dicen?". El Tiempo (in Spanish). Retrieved 2024-05-02., which asserts that the Bolivarian Games are crucial to advancing to the Olympic Games and are a major competition. That isn't an uncorroborated claim; it's sourced to reliable news sites. --Habst (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2024 (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!} 00:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to notable event. More unsourced Lugnuts nonsense. A series of articles written solely to populate a list on an Olympic event page. Just because it's true doesn't make it notable. Those who disagree are required to bring sources to prove that assertion of notability. All these stubs should be sourced sufficiently or redirected to the event. BusterD (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BusterD, thanks, what do you think about a procedural keep because the nomination used an invalid criteria (WP:NATHLETE is intended only for track and field / cross country / road racing athletes, not sailors)? --Habst (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correctly pointing out the nominator used an imprecise shortcut doesn't help the subject meet notability by the correct guideline. The nominator's assertions are 1) doesn't meet the criteria for specific notability, 2) doesn't meet general notability, and 3) only applied source was a bare mention. These assertions go unrefuted in this process. The correct SNG link is WP:SPORTSPERSON, and that guideline (amended specifically to deal with lightly-sourced Lugnuts-type creation) tells us at least one reliable source is required which directly details the subject. Can anybody present one? BusterD (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 22:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deon Kraemer

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. Ineligible for PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Amature player with minimal coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The stub of an article provides no evidence of notability. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. A discussion about a possible Redirection can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United States of America Computing Olympiad

AfDs for this article:

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

This was nominated a year ago and the result was no consensus, because an organization that is the main feeder competition for the IOI has to have sources. I agree, but really, there is nothing, I've tried. I propose redirection to International Olympiad in Informatics. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 15:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 15:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Education, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a couple of news sources I found (however, they aren't in-depth):

- https://www.oregonlive.com/my-north-of-26/2015/06/daniel_chiu_from_catlin_gabel.html

- https://www.ahwatukee.com/news/article_ae8b9bf0-f355-11e4-a52a-a7cc90dfff19.html

- https://scnow.com/news/local/clemson-university-to-host-usa-computing-olympiad-for-top-high-school-students/article_b3187844-0e21-5ed9-877c-8158b66bc8f9.html Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 16:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Staraction's sources. I feel there aren't too many sources outside of WP:PRIMARY, but what they provided, looks like it's enough. Conyo14 (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shravan Kushwaha

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Being a candidate in the imminent general election isn't a pass for WP:NPOL. Getting his wife elected to whatever position isn't a pass either. Subject was never elected for any political position and the general election is yet to happen. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bihar. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mukhia is a constitutional post in India. This is head of local government and this person has serves in this office for years and now aiming for higher office. We have Ritu Jaiswal who also remained mukhia. So I don't think it violates any policy.Admantine123 (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Admantine123 No, local government heads are not considered inherently notable under WP:NPOL regardless of how many years they spent serving, AFAIK. So, that doesn’t count for this subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He doesn't seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources per GNG. According to WP:NPOL, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". I think this says it all! The sources cited don't even give enough proof of notability. They only give a mere "trivial" mention of his candidacy. That's clearly not enough! ZyphorianNexus (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noted above, per NPOL and GNG, and also WP:NOTINHERITED. Being a member of a political dynasty does not guarantee a Wikipedia article. Finally, the three sources do not prove WP:SIGCOV for this member of that family. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Hey there) Little Miss Mary

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

Article about a song, not properly referenced as having any serious claim to passing WP:NSONGS. As always, songs are not automatically entitled to have their own standalone articles just because they exist, and have to show and reliably source some claim of significance -- but the main attempt at a notability claim here is that versions of the song appeared on albums that had gold certification as albums, which is not in and of itself evidence that the song has its own standalone notability independently of those albums, and the article is referenced entirely to primary source directory entries that are not support for notability, with not a whit of GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about the song in media or books shown at all. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the song from having to be the subject of reliable source coverage. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2024-04 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of songs written by Roger Cook and Roger Greenaway.Delete per nom Fails N:SONG. Redirecting to List of songs written by Roger Cook and Roger Greenaway is a potential alternative but the article only seems to include notable songs, which "Hey There, Little Miss Mary" is not. Mooonswimmer 18:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 00:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gilles Beaudoin

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

Biography of a former mayor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they existed, and have to pass conditional notability standards based on the depth of substance that can be written about their careers and the volume of sourcing that can be shown to support it -- but this, as written, is basically "mayor who existed" apart from a section that advertorially bulletpoints a generic list of "achievements" without really saying or sourcing anything whatsoever about what he personally had to do with any of them, and minimally cites the whole thing to one primary source self-published by the city government that isn't support for notability at all, one unreliable source that isn't support for notability at all, and just one hit of run of the mill local coverage upon his death that isn't enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only GNG-worthy source in the mix.
Trois-Rivières is a significant enough city that a mayor would certainly be eligible to keep an article that was written substantially and sourced properly, so I'd be happy to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to the necessary resources than I've got can find enough GNG-worthy sourcing to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more substance and sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Here's a decent French newspaper account of him being on the job for 10 years [55] and a Radio Canada piece about him, 50 years after he was elected [56]. I think we have enough for basic sourcing, with sustained coverage over the past half century or more. Oaktree b (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG.Rustypenguin (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has 2 refs that indicate notability. Desertarun (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting GNG, good sources. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenji Tohira

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

A Japanese racing driver. Page fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Doesn't have much beyond when he was born and died, and some scores. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 18:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ ~~for lack of viable press and statistical content other than subject's death. Ernesto Wong, another recently deceased sports figure, nominated for the same reasons.~~ Changing to Keep after digging up of sources. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 21:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page on Japanese Wikipedia appears to be more in depth and has more sources than the page here currently has. I was initially going to withdraw this nomination but I think even with those sources the page still doesn't qualify for WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:GNG. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 18:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is dailysportscar a good source? If you take his name in Japanese and search for it in Google Books and Google News a bunch of results pop up. Dude was born in 1941 so there is probably more coverage of him on paper than digitally. as-web.jp is also a good in-depth source. Polygnotus (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good sources on the Japanese article as noted above. Also [57] Odd that this was nominated the day after his death, but from his obituary in Chunichi Shimbun: "1960年代後半から高橋国光さんらとビッグレースに参戦。スカイライン2000GT－Rで通算4勝を挙げ、フェアレディ240Zで日本グランプリを連覇（71、72年）。90年代にはN1耐久シリーズや全日本GT選手権にも参戦した。" Lots of other obituaries in outlets in Japan (from what I can dig up on noticeboards, it appears obituaries in national publications count towards notability?) including this particularly indepth one. Here's a piece from 芸文社 [ja] discussing his car in the 80s. It appears there's a feature on him in the 2022 issue of RacingOn magazine. Another piece from 2019. Agree with Polygnotus that there's likely a lot of coverage that has not been digitized since Japan is only now partially undergoing digital transformation. DCsansei (talk) 10:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep refs look good to me. Desertarun (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DCsansei. What's with the trend of nominating long retired Japanese race car drivers, less well known in the west. This is now the third I have to put my vote in. Japanese Wikipedia shows that he has a well accomplished career being the 1994 Super Taikyu champion. A database listing on JAF will prove this otherwise, thus passing WP:NMOTORSPORT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
additional comment: IIRC, he was one of the works Skyline GT-R racers of the early 1970s (though not as notable as Takahashi, Hasemi and Kurosawa), thus he is bound to be notable by that association. Additionally, he is known for being one of those in Nissan's celebrated 50 consecutive race wins (by C10 Skyline GT-R) they like to promote. Thus, this is another. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silesia national football team

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

Silesia is not a country, so it cannot be this. Rename it--but to what? There's no Frisian national football team or Walloon national football team either. Plus, the article is little more than a directory and a list of matches. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Czech Republic, Germany, and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, should certainly be trimmed / improved / sourced, whole sections could go, but it seems a bit unfair to single out this team, as it is only one of a long list here, and while I realise it's not a real guide to notability, the fact that it has 9 language versions at least show there's some passing interest beyond its homeland and has some historical significance. It's pretty niche stuff, but a lot of others in that list are too and it may be more logical to start from the most obscure and work up, don't want to insult anyone's region but Seborga national football team looks an example of one with far less merit for inclusion than Silesia.

The name is a topic that's come up previously, particularly relating to the more prominent non-nations like Catalonia. Personally I would have no problem with it being something like 'representative football team' for all of these, but it's been argued that there are quite a few non-sovereign FIFA teams so the word 'national' is really just used to differentiate them from clubs and does not necessarily infer a certain status on the territory in question.

Only other thing is, do Wallonia and Frisia have any sort of combined team that plays matches? That's not meant to be a 'well do they???' question, I'm genuinely not sure, but I couldn't see one on French or Dutch wiki where one might expect to find something snuck away. If they have never had such a team, it's not really fair to compare their non-presence to articles for teams that have demonstrably played matches, even if really long ago and/or at a very low level. Crowsus (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are football teams that cover non-sovereign territories, such as the most notable cases of Catalonia and the Basque Country, as well as some CONIFA members such as Occitania and County of Nice. If there are sources that cover the team, there are no problems, as Silesia is competing in the UEFA Regions' Cup. Svartner (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage, team doesn't appear to play regularly (5/6 matches in 90 years???), no evidence of notability. If it is kept, it should be renamed to Silesia official football team or Silesia representative football team, as it is NOT a national team like Poland national football team etc. Giant Snowman 09:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Why is a regional team titled as national? Should be titled Silesia regional football team. Next whats with the Notable players section? That should be removed. Seems to have been abused? No history section? Must be something surely for the regional team. Certainly needs sorting out. Govvy (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For renaming, WP:RM should be used, not AfD. Glancing at pl wiki, just removing 'national' should work. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep could be improved, but the topic is notable - can easily tell by looking at German and Polish language articles, though the Polish one is under sourced by English standards. SportingFlyer T·C 06:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above. Although it has notp played many matches it is a represnetative team that is a topic of interest. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, per SportingFlyer and several others. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunaina Chautala

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

Fails WP:NPOL and generally WP:GNG. Being a candidate for the imminent general election in June does not automatically help the subject pass WP:NPOL. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NPOL. Mooonswimmer 19:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedant}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacopo Bocchi}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovari (musician)}}