Dear reader/writer of this WikiProject Deletion sorting/Asia. The present page was above the template_include_limit. As a result, the bottom of the page was not displayed correctly. At Category:Pages where post-expand include size is exceeded, we tried to fix the problem, in order to empty this category (see the related talk page). The original page can be seen in the page history (although it will not display correctly). In any case, feel free to revert if you have a better solution to fix the page overflow problem.
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Asia. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Asia|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Asia. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
This list also includes sublists of deletion debates involving articles related to specific Asian countries.
Asia
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.
This is a fairly unusual XfD but I submit that this article is based in large part on original research, despite citing a decent number of sources. The entire article plays out as a tit-for-tat "China says this" vs "Tibet exile/apologist says that" and there isn't really an attempt to actually frame anything within the context of "what actually happened".
It's understandable to say "the issue is contentious" but when the entire article becomes a matter of paraphrasing different POVs, there's very little that a reader can actually take out of the article. The only "real" encyclopedic piece of work I can see is "Tibetan welfare after the Chinese takeover", which itself does not seem particularly germane to the question of whether serfdom existed in Tibet prior to 1951, other than, perhaps, insinuating that the Chinese government does not care about Tibet or rather that the Tibetan social structure is so rigid that reforms have only been partially successful. Regardless, it does not feel as if this segment is appropriate for inclusion as a matter of historicity.
The same topic is covered to some length in the article Social class in Tibet, which approaches a similar topic from a perspective much more aligned with the standards on Wikipedia. I understand that approaching an article entitled "Controversy" is understandably difficult, but articles like Investiture Controversy and Controversy in Russia regarding the legitimacy of eastward NATO expansion handle their respective topics with substantially more grace and include the proper historical context instead of devolving eventually to namedropping entities and/or historians and assigning respective quotations without any contextualization as to what they mean. Augend (drop a line) 22:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep & rewrite. Regardless of whether serfdom has or has not existed in Tibet, the topic has gained enough traction and is notable. A quick search of "serfdom in Tibet" on Google Scholar brings up loads of articles: [1]. Social class in Tibet is a suitable article, but I think this topic deserves its own page.
That being said, if this article survives AfD, it will need to be significantly rewritten. Definitely don't make WP:POV forks out of it, but then I agree that there must be significant effort to compare POVs into a coherent article. We can also jettison the "Human rights in Tibet" section. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & rewrite. I'd mostly agree with The Lonely Panther's position here, that the debate itself deserves its own article, mostly even just to keep track of all the perspectives on the issues. The 'serfdom controversy' is significant enough on its own, as seen by the size of the literature, to deserve a separate article from Chinese administration in Tibet and the controversy over that.
Potential rewrite could for sure use a lot more definitions and information on the structure, prevalence, and development of class structures throughout Tibetan history. Additionally more detail on exactly which historical events contain 'competing versions of Tibetan History', such as the disagreements over the nature of the 1959 Tibetan Uprising, is vital. Literal sun (talk) 18:00, 6 February 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.
Delete: I didn't have time to review all sources, but every one that I did check was an obvious laundered press release, i.e. churnalism. Nothing independent of the source and frankly nothing that wasn't WP:MILL, just routine notices of a company doing company stuff. Nothing notable to see here. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:33, 7 February 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 tournament is a youth (Asian Asian Group) tournament, rather than the main continental swimming championship. The previous tournament for the main tournament was in 2016 Tokyo (10th) while the previous edition for the actual tournament in Bangalore, India (10th Asian Age Group). There's a lack of resources to create an article for theAsian Age Group Championships that would satisfy WP:GNG either. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This seems to be an upcoming event so the article is probably premature. (Note that four of the previous ten editions have their own articles.) --- Tito Pao (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No this is different. This is the Asian Age Group Championship, there are no articles for the previous edition for event – the four you mentioned are for the senior tournament. It didn't help that initial cites for the tournament did not make the Age Group (youth) distinction. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. This is quite confusing, so let's give it time to take place and for the article to improve - including finding an article name that incorporates "Age Group". Geschichte (talk) 09:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a procedure to at least move this page to it's accurate title "2024 Asian Group Championships" while still under AfD, the page has been under a inaccurate title for too long. I have to emphasize that this is a different tournament than the senior Asian Championship yet again. In restrospect, I should have moved this first before nominating for deletion.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:22, 14 February 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.
Link 3 Turkmen news agency which is also Independent from CAFA
Link 4 Sport.kg an Information Agency; Sport.kg is the only specialized portal in Kyrgyzstan
and many more; that i will add to the article to enhance it sourcing
2. The tournament is organized by the Central Asian Football Association (CAFA), which oversees football in Central Asia. CAFA is a member of the AFC and, therefore, FIFA. As an international competition between member nations, the tournament holds significant notability. This is particularly relevant now, as some footballers who participated in the tournament are becoming prominent figures in Central Asian football and across Asia. The tournament shall be cited as the beginning of their international careers, further emphasizing its importance. Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment International level competition and there are sources, however they are very young. So I am not sure at what level wikipedia should be keeping these. Govvy (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
let us remember that The Central Asian Football Association (CAFA) was only formed in 2015, and with the tournament being the 8th tournament organised, CAFA has shown significant progress in promoting and developing football in the region. Over the years, CAFA has developed its media coverage and reporting capabilities, making the tournaments more accessible and notable. While the first editions may have had limited coverage due to CAFA's emerging stage and limited experience, the organization's growth and increased attention highlight the importance of these early stages articles being there.
Furthermore, for Central Asia, where international sports events are relatively scarce, CAFA's tournaments hold notable significance. The early editions of the tournament are crucial for understanding the development of football in the region and providing a better statistical context. As CAFA continues to grow and attract more attention, the historical records of all editions, including the first ones, will be valuable for researchers, fans, and anyone interested in the football in Central Asia.
Therefore, despite its relatively young age, CAFA's tournaments are notable and deserving of coverage on Wikipedia, as they contribute to the broader narrative of international sports in Central Asia. Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for politicians and living persons WP:GNG and WP:Politician.A significant part of the text in this article lacks reliable sources. The sources provided only mention this person in passing, without significant coverage that would establish their notability in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this page merits retention. Several notable news sources have published articles in which Nazary figures prominently, such as this one by the New York Sun. Dan Wang (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zero references to establish notability. After searching, found other people of same name, but no comprehensive, in-depth coverage of this specific person. PROD removed 27 June 2024; PROD reverted 27 October 2022; PROD on 27 October 2022; Created on 27 August 2014. JoeNMLC (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!15:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Azerbajani article gives 1 reference: "Tamxil Ziyəddinoğlu, "Hafiz Baxış-80". Bütöv Azərbaycan qəzeti, №36(168), 17-23 oktyabr 2012-ci il." This appears to be an article in a reasonable news source. I can't find it but I think he may have significant coverage. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. Found a few Azeri sources ([2], [3], [4]) that I think are just over the line of WP:SIGCOV. Reviewing with machine translation though, so could be wrong -- happy to be convinced either way. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lucky Akter's Wikipedia page should not be removed for several reasons:
Notability: Lucky Akter has gained significant attention and recognition for her role in the 2013 Shahbagh Movement, which was a pivotal event in Bangladesh's recent history. Her activism and leadership have had a substantial impact on the political and social landscape of the country.
Public Interest: As a prominent activist, Lucky Akter's actions and contributions are of interest to the public. Documenting her life and work provides valuable information to those researching contemporary Bangladeshi politics and social movements.Historical
Significance: The Shahbagh Movement is a critical chapter in Bangladesh's history. As a leading figure in this movement, Lucky Akter's contributions help contextualize and understand the broader implications and outcomes of the movement.
Media Coverage: Her activities and statements have been covered by both national and international media, adding to her notability and the verifiability of the information available about her.
Representation: Having a Wikipedia page for Lucky Akter ensures representation of female activists and leaders from South Asia, contributing to a more diverse and inclusive record of historical and contemporary figures.
The Communist Party of Bangladesh is a registered party in the Election Commission of Bangladesh and Lucky Akter is a central committee member of that party. Benzir A. Shawon (talk) 08:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment There appears to be an undeclared conflict of interest here. Benzir A. Shawon describes themselves as a leader of the BSU, which Lucky Akter is (or was) president of. Before I removed it, the article was full of unsourced detail like her date and place of birth, educational history, height, marriage, child, when she joined organizations, and what she experienced there. If that information didn't come from reliable secondary sources, where did it come from?
A couple of good sources are cited ([5] and [6]), but many of the others are written by her or are press releases. It's okay to cite such sources occasionally for details you can't find in better sources, but they don't contribute to notability and there's no reason to cite multiple versions of one announcement. It's also essential that the sources support the content where they're cited, which many don't do at present. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment and delete – I agree with the comment about the conflict of interest. Look at the information accompanying the photograph. The photographer, who took the picture three years ago, just happens to be the article creator, too. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Ira Leviton (talk)
Delete Unelected candidates for office are not automatically considered notable, and she doesn't seem to meet GNG. Also, "representation of female activists and leaders from South Asia" is not a valid reason to maintain a page on Wikipedia. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Islamic high school. Not a full high school as it does not go beyond grade 10. The sources while numerous are mostly from non reliable sources and do not prove significant coverage needed for notability guidelines. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do not show that the notability guidelines are being met. There are no significant claims to notability. The majority of the sources are from an online bookstore and obituaries. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vinegarymass911 There are references in Bengali and English language to verify the article. Most of the references are in Bengali, because he is a Bangladeshi man. And the book references given are his published books. ইউনুছ মিঞা (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
To be frank, this article glorifies our subject despite historical scholarship barely documenting sufficient notability to be included within Wikipedia. Some of the sources in the article do not meet Wikipedia standards. Of those that do, some of them are not about our subject at all and are used to source points irrelevant to our subject. The sources which do mention our subject only mention him in passing, never as a separate topic. Article contains a lot of Original Research to make it look like more notable than it actually was, which can mislead people. In connclusion, this article fails WP:N with no significant level of coverage. Jaunpurzada (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails notability and the sources on the page are poor to unreliable WP:HISTRS with many failing verification with no significant coverage on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes Wikipedia's minimum requirement criteria WP:GNG. also there are many offline sources are available, for more information please see WP:OFFLINE. Some of ref are 1, 2, 3, 4. Thank you. 06:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete The article is confusing and does not show why the subject is notable. Passing mentions collected together does not add to notability or establish a coherent timeline.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:09, 9 July 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.
Not opposed to the redirect mentioned by Broc; nor to Keep (if one considers his role in The Kung Fu significant too, for example) or that the number of his roles can make him meet WP:NACTOR (31 credits=prolific?).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)14:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. He lacks significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Heng was not even part of the starring cast in any movies nor TV series, not even on Girl vs. Monster nor Kung Fu. All of his roles are minor roles both in film and TV series. No significant coverage of him as an actor. This is considered to be WP:TOOSOON. — YoungForever(talk)16:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This review appeared in both The Sydney Morning Herald's Good Weekend magazine and in The Agehere. The review notes: "My worry is that many of the dishes that really set Cambodian cuisine apart aren't represented here. I was hoping to find amok, or nom banh chok, a fragrant fish, coconut and noodle soup. ... But there are vast differences between Cambodia's Kitchen and many of the other nearby quick-service noodle joints. Everything here is made in-house, including the beef balls and fish cakes, things that almost universally come from a packet."
The article provides 144 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "I love discovering cuisines that are under-represented back home and Melbourne offers plenty of that. Cambodia’s Kitchen is the only Cambodian eatery in the central city and when I visited, it was well-patronised by Khmer-speaking customers. The noodle soups are signature here, and I was chuffed with my pick of beef noodle soup – a thick and aromatic broth packed with a very generous serving of slow-cooked succulent chunks of beef shin as well as tendon, tripe, and housemade bouncy beef balls."
The review notes: "Linna and brother Ivanra keep it simple at their Russell St restaurant. Think 44 seats inside a ho-hum dining room, flanked either side with decorative awnings and ornamental wicker lamp shades overhead. A soundtrack of Selena Gomez and Taylor Swift buzzes from the speakers. The menu has photos of each dish and is printed out and slotted into a plastic display folder."
The review provides 167 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "If there’s a hot pot you’re yet to try on this list, it’s probably this one. Fairly new to the scene having opened in 2022, Cambodia’s Kitchen is still regarded as a well-kept secret among hot pot lovers and multiculturally adventurous foodies alike. The cosy Russell St restaurant serves authentic classic Cambodian fare, a rich noodle soup (kuyteav) being undisputedly the star of the entire operation and what many street vendors in Phnom Penh typically sell for breakfast."
The review notes: "Here at Cambodia's Kitchen, the Huns' long-held family recipes and use of traditional techniques deliver an accurate reflection of what's being cooked up on the streets of Phnom Penh. Linna's menu draws plenty of inspiration from her own mother's and grandmother's cooking. The signature Cambodian rice noodle soup is the hero offering — a pork broth base loaded with minced and sliced pork, pork liver, and homemade beef balls, fish balls, fish cake and pork loaf."
HereInternet Archive is Concrete Playground's editorial policy. Here is information in the editorial policy that supports its being reliable:
Its editor is Samantha Teague.
"Concrete Playground is Australia's fourth largest independently-owned digital publisher (Nielsen Market Intelligence, July 2018),"
"All facts need to be thoroughly checked by both writers and editors before publishing — we have a duty to our readers to provide them with well-researched, accurate information."
"Direct quotes cannot be altered, and subjects do not have any approval over their quotes."
"Corrections will only be made to a published piece if something is found to be factually incorrect. If a change is made to a published article, a dated amendment will be added to the footer to acknowledge the original piece has been edited."
"All writers must disclose any possible conflict of interest on any piece of work they submit. This must then be disclosed at the footer of the published piece."
"We regularly critique restaurants and bars, and cultural events. These judgements are entirely our own and are only made after experiencing the subject first-hand. All positive and negative feedback must be backed up by reasoning."
"Opinion pieces (including our restaurant and film reviews) are entirely independent and are never produced in partnership with a third party."
Non-notable skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98(Talk)17:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for a Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!16:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. I was not able to find any English or Chinese sources about the subject person, and she has only won bronze medals in the Chinese Championships, failing both GNG and NSKATE. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul）14:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Embassies are not inherently notable. This has been marked for notability concerns, 3.5 years ago. The history section is not even about the embassy. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, delete. We're working from a decided lack of information here but GMaps shows this as, apparently, a neighborhood in Jakarta. Maybe it represents some level of administration, but it's patently not a village as the word is normally used in English, and the Indonesian term {Kelurahan} doesn't automatically correspond to a notable political/geographical unit. This comes across as part of yet another database dump except that we don't even know what database was used. Yes, we can verify that it's a "thing", but until we can say something about it in its own right, I have to go with deletion. Mangoe (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Comment The coverage was beyond routine in that it was analyzed in the pattern of something else (the Buddhist-Muslim conflict in Burma), however it fails WP:SUSTAINED so I feel like at most this should be merged somewhere. I can't think of where... PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:14, 24 June 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.
Draftify. The TechCrunch and Hollywood Reporter sources are the most passing of passing mentions. The Daily Dot piece is substantial, but smacks of churnalism. BD2412T14:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What's the rationale for deletion here? A list of episodes is a very common page type for a TV show. Why would it need to be deleted? Toughpigs (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agee with @Toughpigs there should be no limit on episode numbers to create a new episode list I have seen shows that have less than 12 episode split into new pages. Anime9000 (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:TVSPLIT was created in 22 Feb 2007 and the episode list for first Pretty Cure series was created in 22 Nov 2004 so there was no limit of episodes in order to put episodes into new page. I am sure older editors don't know this rule from MOS:TVSPLIT. Even some of the split the episodes list into new seasons pages with only 12 episode per page. Anime9000 (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this line "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone" means they don't need to follow guidelines or policies. That is why users create episodes list into new pages because they don't follow WP:TVSPLIT guideline even though the episode number is really short. A lot of anime series that have 24 episodes have episode list page separate from main article. Anime9000 (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Say you want to create a new episode list page for a new anime that has 12 episodes and say it will improve the article but goes against WP:TVSPLIT guideline. The user will say I will use WP:IAR to ignore the TVSPLIT guideline. Anime9000 (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this to stop a WP:BLAR edit war. I don't see a BLAR edit war here. There was one BLAR, it was reverted, and the article stabilized. In the future, should probably wait for multiple BLAR attempts before sending to AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it as redirect: I know that the Pretty Cure series has a bunch of episode lists, although not all of them follow the MOS:TVSPLIT guideline, and this article is no exception. May do something about these lists in the future but for now this should be a redirect. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them are usually made whenever a show ends. So, leave it as a redirect until a new PreCure season starts airing next year. Same with the recent Sentai and Rider seasons. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So is the episode list going to be merged back onto the series page? I don't understand why this is being called a deletion or a redirect, rather than a merge. Toughpigs (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can use this stop a WP:BLAR since it happened in the last series Soaring Sky! Pretty Cure. This was the link to Soaring Sky Pretty Cure: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Soaring_Sky!_Pretty_Cure_episodes The AFD (Articles For Deletion) can be used for discussing WP:BLAR The Pretty Cure series always had episode list split into new page @BaldiBasicsFan wants to make the episodes back to main page article page. A lot of people will know that this series will have more episodes than 12 maybe up to 50 episodes which will be enough to do an episode split. I did calc for readable Prosize all the pretty cure series including episode list had more 50kB to split the episode into new page WP:TVSPLIT they said each episode summary should be 1kb Anime9000 (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an easy problem to solve. #1) Merge the 12-episode page back to the show's page; #2) When there are more seasons of the show, split it out to a separate page again. What is the disagreement? Toughpigs (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While technically the list is currently short enough to merge back in right now, this is an long airing series so it'll have to be split out pretty quickly anyways. Better to save valuable editor time to keep it split even if its early. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anime1990 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granted, this split was done a bit too early, and the contents needs to be fleshed out a bit more, but what's the point of shoving the episode list back into the main article again if it's going to being spun out either way in a matter of weeks? The main problem is more: deciding and reaching consensus when the right time is (in terms of season progression and episode list size) to split off an episode list. See also: WP:SIZERULE which might be a better rule of thumb, also the anime MoS. Any other of the 20 prior seasons also have separate 'List of xyz Pretty Cure' episodes' lists, splitting off its episode lists was more of a given, eventually. Cubchring8000 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the 4 sources in the current version are not reliable news agencies but are likely paid placement. He seems to have been involved with a blockchain project called SingularDAO; I don't see any good sources related to that either. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No sourcing that I could find besides sales listings and a single sentence mention in an issue of The Booklist from 2008, but there is a language barrier so my Japanese searches may have not been effective. Could probably be merged and mentioned somewhere if there aren't other sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Merge or Redirection. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!00:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (see WP:GNG.) The school already has an article in Malay Wikipedia so an English one would be unnecessary. N niyaz (talk) 07:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does not satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (see WP:GNG,) not an important school in Malaysia, and no reliable and independent sources cited or significant coverage. N niyaz (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines ; most of the secondary sources cited are paid materials by Multimedia University (see WP:SPIP.) N niyaz (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since I cited most of the secondary sources in the article. I would like to ask the nominator for deletion N niyaz, is it possible to list some of the secondary sources that you claimed are paid materials by Asia Pacific University? KjjjKjjj (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay @KjjjKjjj I made a little mistake there, what I meant was Multimedia University. Also the school receives no significant coverage and most of the sources are just mentions. Unfortunately what's best is to make it a redirect.
@KjjjKjjj You could already tell by the topic and style of the writing that it is a press release/paid article. Trying to find a paid article disclaimer in the sources is just stupid. N niyaz (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I accepted this article from draft with the intention that it meets WP:GNG. This is also done with the guidelines for accepting drafts via AFC process. However, another editor questioned my acceptance with the opposing question of this article not meeting GNG, as well as a prior work of socks. I told him to take it to AFD for a formal discussion yet he chose to ignore that and sincerely wanted to investigate more. The problem is that there haven't been any problem I can see about this article and being created via AFC is a handful way of seeking a second review otherwise opinion. I have brought it here for a formal discussion, and still maintain keeping the article. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!21:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SafariScribe, Sorry, but I want to remind you of two points: 1) The article wasn't created via AFC and wasn't even submitted for review. 2) I didn't sincerely wanted to investigate more. As I mentioned on your tp, this AFD was unnecessary and I have little hope it will result in deletion. As I've mentioned on your tp, the AFD process can now feel like a lottery. Anyway, you could have sent it back to the draft namespace, but you decided to take it to AFD, which was your choice. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see no issue. It meets WP:NFO criteria #1 and WP:NFILM/GNG in general (see: [30][31][32][33] etc.). This is perfectly fine in mainspace from what I can see. The purpose of AfC is "[...] to identify which submissions will be deleted and which won't." I imagine this article will survive deletion because of the amount of coverage it has received. (Semi-)unrelated, I would not recommend moving an article accepted by AfC back to draftspace: Although it doesn't technically violate WP:DRAFTOBJECT (because in this case the reviewer would have been the one to move it back), it could very easily confuse the newer editor who created it. CFA💬22:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's basically a start-class article at this point, but enough reviews noted that appear to be from good sources to meet notability. I've removed a bit of the gratuitous name-dropping and fluff, at this point, I doubt there's much junk from the UPE editor. Ravensfire (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References do not show how this is notable. Plenty of unreliable sources and NEWSORGINDIA but nothing in-depth. Recommend a redirect to parent Pakistan Television Corporation. While I did not do so prior to the AfD, programming also needs to be removed per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. It appears that the notability of the page is attempted to be heightened by the mentions of the programs it shows. CNMall41 (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will reserve a !vote for now but for those who may not be aware, PTV Sports is country's state-owned channel dedicated to sports, much like DD Sports in India. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another one that fails WP:NLIST. I removed everything that does not have a reference or a Wikipedia page and there are only three current original programs. Everything else falls under WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I did a WP:BEFORE in an attempt to find sourcing that talks about their programming as a whole and was unable to find anything reliable. I recommend a redirect of the name and maybe include the three current programs on the main Geo Entertainment page as an WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Populated & legally recognized places presumed to be notable; don't see any reason this should be not legally recognized given the significant number of people who (from the photo) appear to be living in it. Article is mostly original research but contains useful information. If you really want proof it exists this discusses a wildfire happening there. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Added 2 archived references to the above article – Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Government of Pakistan website showing population of Osakai per 2017 Census of Pakistan plus Dawn newspaper reference given above by Mrfoogles. Meets WP:GEOLAND now...Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actor, possible mercenary work. Most of the sources are mere mentions/name-drops of her, being focused on other members of her family instead. Urdu!VoA is a prose-style interview with her based on the automated translation, two sources are about being given a non-exclusive reward. Draftification attempts led to a move-war; see WP:AN/I#User:BeauSuzanne. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques16:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Not where biographies of living persons are concerned. Literally everything in the article that could reasonably be challenged must be sourced, and the award is the only thing that can be sourced based on what I'm seeing. An "article" that just states she won an award without any further context isn't really much of a stub, let alone an article. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques16:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For the record - I draftified the BLP because it was in poor shape, filled with WP:OR using WP:FICTREF. However, Mushy Yank reverted my draftification without addressing the WP:OR issues, which escalated into a move war (not initiated by me though). This BLP appears to be a case of WP:UPE because it was created by an editor BeauSuzanne, who has a notoriously bad history of creating BLPs on non-notable subjects using WP:FICTREF. Anyone arguing for keeping this based on WP:ANYBIO # 1 must understand that there is no consensus that ANYBIO #1 supersedes GNG.. Clearly, the subject fails to meet the requirements of GNG and WP:NBIO as well. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeraxmoira expanded the BLP since it was AfD'd, but I still don't see it meeting the GNG and since there's no consensus that ANYBIO#1 overrides GNG, so in order to preserve Jeraxmoira's work, I'd like to suggest we Redirect it to Naeem Tahir per @S0091, — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Stating that I had not tried to honestly address the issues mentioned in the tags then on the page (and judged that they could reasonably appear addressed; even if they were perhaps not completely addressed) is at best exaggerated (see my edit, edit summary, the tags themselves (different of those currently on the page), the state of the page then and page history) and stating that there was a move-war is clearly misleading (see article TP, where this was explained. Thank you. I will not make any further comments here, the same way I did not reply any further on that page and stopped editing it, for various reasons, including lack of time. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)16:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is a well know a radio artist. The government of pakistan awarded her and she also worked in a few dramas which i added but you removed it.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]
BeauSuzanne, Your argument that she received an award (WP:ANYBIO# 1) has already been countered above and your claim that she also worked in a few dramas doesn't really justifies a standalone BLP and is not convincing either, especially if the roles were not major. And as you yourself mentioned, that she's a radio artist, which also makes it difficult for her to meet the NACTOR. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't radio artist notable she has been workin since 1958 which is in the source too and has worked more than three decades.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Delete: wedding photos and discussions of her spouse are all I find... The award could suggest notability, but the sourcing isn't there. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Allan Nonymous the award is one of the highest national honors bestowed by Pakistan. In the year she received it, there were only 36 recipients and she was one of the two females. It may not be enough to establish notability but please do not call minor. S0091 (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP - I'm simply pointing out that the credibility of this award isn't strong, so it's not inappropriate to classify it as a minor civilian award. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've stated my position and while I don't need to provide evidence for everything I say, but, if you insist, you can refer to this, this and this, which says In the past, numerous Pakistani TV, film, music and literature personalities have been given these awards, while others struggled to even get nominated. Many complained of the lack of a stringent criterion and claimed favouritism as well.. If you don't want to trust me, that's your choice. However, you should consider trusting these sources and the former senior cabinet minister who have made the same statements as mine, about these civil awards. I prefer not to engage with WP:LOUTSOCK, so I won't argue further. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single source claims that Yasmeen Tahir got an award due to personal connections or that she was not awarded as per merit neither they mentioned Sitara-i-Imtiaz is fake/minor. You are throwing fictious sources that does'nt support your claims. 2404:3100:1402:FFDF:1:0:9155:36D0 (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
S0091, Allow me to clarify my remarks. I do not deny that it is one of the highest civilian awards in the country. Perhaps my wording was incorrect. What I intended to say is that it is referred to as minor in the sense that it lacks credibility and I provided sources to support my claims, and the more I research it, the more I find opinions aligning with mine. [Granting civil awards to minions, crooks and fraudsters has eroded the prestige and value of these awards.] That said, it's still an honor to receive such an award, even if its credibility has diminished. However, basing a BLP solely on this award doesn't make sense to me at all. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think we can all agree Yasmeen Tahir is not one those crooks or fraudsters. :) That opinion piece is about civil awards in general, of which there are several, with specific focus on higher education and one example regarding the Tamgha-e-Imtiaz. Also clearly he agrees the award has prestige and value; otherwise it couldn't be eroded. As I state above I am not saying the award in and of itself establishes notability; only that is not a minor award. S0091 (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sitara-i-Imtiaz#Recipients of Sitara-e-Imtiaz: I have tried to find at least a couple secondary reliable sources with in-depth coverage about her but everything is brief mentions. Within those mentions it is clear to me she has had an impact but it's not enough to establish notability. However, sources could come to light in the future so I at least want to maintain the work that has been done which a redirect will accomplish. I do think the title should changed to Yasmin Tahir, though. S0091 (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep per Jeraxmoira's improvements and additional findings along with mine. It is clear Tahir/Tahir's work has been written about so sources exist but the issues are access to sources and transliteration. S0091 (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Most of the sources exist in the keyphrase "یاسمین طاہر". The initial concerns about sourcing have been significantly fixed now. Many of the latest sources added are not mere passing mentions and multiple sources verify particular claims. Everything in the article is sourced and the concerns about OR and UPE have been fixed as I have contributed to almost 55.5% of the article's content, completely rewriting it forward and none were referred from the 4 July version of this article.
There is much more information available now beyond wedding photos and content related to Naeem Tahir which were also one of the previous concerns. This article cannot be redirected or merged to a suitable target, i.e Naeem Tahir, Imtiaz Ali Taj or Sitara-i-Imtiaz as it has extensive coverage from her early life till now, which will be lost or cannot be fit into another article without disparaging it. With the current level of sourcing, the subject passes WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO#1.
Per Sitara-i-Imtiaz - It recognizes individuals who have made an "especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of Pakistan, world peace, cultural or other significant public endeavours". I believe her continued contributions from Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 until now is what made her eligible for Sitara-i-Imtiaz. The amount of coverage she has now is surprising for someone who is notable for her work during and after the war, when the internet did not exist. This article should be kept as a significant amount of coverage exists in offline books, local newspapers and other magazines popular during that time. Adding that to what we have online will easily make her notable. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I have no idea how or where they'll be able to find it in Pakistan. Most probably in a renowned public library I guess. My point is that the subject will pass GNG easily with what we may find offline, which is just additional to what we have online and I believe what we already have online/in the article is enough to establish notability via SNG. FWIW, her name has a lot of hits in the Urdu Digest monthly magazine, but I haven't used them because of poor translation output. If I am right, significant coverage is not necessary for someone who passes WP:ANYBIO, so I think we have addressed all the issues here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jeraxmoira, Thanks for your efforts in expanding this BLP However I must highlight that the majority of Urdu sources you cited are not even considered RS for BLPs and I'm unsure if we can use them for WP:V much less to establish GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the sources added by Jeraxmoira are impressive. Transliteration makes searching difficult -- Yasmeen, Yasmin, Yasmine could all be used in English -- and the fact there aren't sources in English doesn't mean this person isn't notable in Pakistan. Valereee (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of this BLP SheriffIsInTown claims that this BLP falls under NPOL, but NPOL is not applicable here. Any advisor to Chief Minister of a province, must meet the GNG, which they do not. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Youknowwhoistheman There is extensive coverage in the Urdu language media and press about this individual and his work, as seen in the search results on Google here. Given this, would you reconsider changing your vote? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your argument. But I don't think that being an advisor to any Chief Minister, he is passing WP:NPOL. And if we talk about WP:GNG, then he is not able to pass even that subject. First, neither WP:SIGCOV is there, from WP:RS is available. Hope you have understood. Best of luck for the future! Youknow? (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib @Youknowwhoistheman With hundreds of sources available, selecting just three is challenging. Most reliable sources cover his statements or financial initiatives, now they wouldn’t report on a non-notable nobody. His notability is evident from the coverage his statements receive. His position contributes to his notability, and this isn’t his first role; he was previously an advisor to Prime Minister Imran Khan. Despite the difficulty in choosing from many sources, a We News piece in Urdu language focuses exclusively on him, and numerous reliable sources with alternative spellings of his name report on his statements and work. This Express Tribune is all about him as well. Then, there are many which cover his appointment to the cabinet, one of them being this Dawn piece. There are plenty more under alternative spelling of his name here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SheriffIsInTown, You mentioned there are hundreds of sources available, but since you've provided 03 coverages, I would like to assess them individually. Firstly, I don't even consider We News a RS. I'm unsure if it has been discussed at WP:RSN, but given its scarce use on WP, I'm not inclined to spend time debating its reliability there. WP:COMMONSENSE suggests it isn't a RS, especially for BLPs. The coverage in the Express Tribune doesn't directly and thoroughly discuss the subject, though this coverage can be used for WP:V, not to establish GNG. The same can be said for the Dawn coverage; it's WP:TRIVIALMENTION and lacks sig./in-depth coverage of the subject. While I don't dispute that there may be some press coverage, but we need solid coverage that delves into detail as required by the GNG for it to contribute to meeting WP:N. We do not establish the WP:N of BLPs based on WP:TRIVIALMENTION or WP:ROTM coverage. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 05:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Advisor's portfolio is considered equal to a minister making them functional part of the cabinet. In this case, they are a member of the provincial cabinet. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SheriffIsInTown, Firstly, this notification does not state they have the same status or powers as a minister. Notifications typically mention such if an advisor is getting the same power/status as a minister. And even if they did, I don't think it falls under NPOL. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province does not have a finance minister, Aslam's role becomes particularly significant. He is currently the sole individual in the cabinet overseeing financial matters, which underscores his importance and justifies the need for an article about him. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pakistan–Saudi Arabia relations per WP:ATD. I tried really hard to find references about this seemingly notable topic, but unfortunately, there is limited coverage, which I suspect is not enough to meet WP:GNG. I think there could be some coverage in the Arabic language or academic coverage, which I couldn't find due to lack of access. Therefore, a redirect is the best option. 2A01:CB06:366:2B00:D0D1:2CFB:B267:3962 (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYNTH - Fails GNG. Those suggesting to keep this article must substantiate with evidence from RS that these listed "phenomena" are indeed are "Internet phenomena in Pakistan." Also delete per @Arms & Hearts, who stated heregiven the existence of List of Internet phenomena and the fact that the internet, by its very nature, isn't affected by national boundaries, this seems unnecessary.Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NLIST. Direct and in-depth coverage in Dawn ([34]), Hindustan Times ([35]), Times of India ([36]), NPR ([37]), Proft by Pakistan Today ([38]), Youlin ([39]). Additional coverage in academic journals ([40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]). Saqib, we're here to WP:BUILDWP, not to destroy. AFDs with lacking proper WP:BEFORE are becoming common in your case. Combined with the fact that you rarely vote to keep ([49]), it shows how ardent a deletionist you are and how much damage is being done with these bad nominations. I have question: how many times you have rescued a topic that was up for deletion but was kept due to your proper BEFORE. I don't think there are many you can show us. Please stop nominating these borderline notable topics or someone has to ask admins to stop this. 2A04:4A43:8F7F:FCB8:465:8EEC:4116:BE64 (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IP - the article is titled Internet phenomena in Pakistan but the coverage you provided are primarily focus on some memes and the provided coverage doesn't even mention Internet phenomena in Pakistan so please just avoid WP:FAKE, as well WP:SYNTH, like i said before. Additionally, I can understand your frustration with my AFDs, so if you believe a t/ban is warranted, I encourage you to raise it at the appropriate forum, not in AFDs. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify IP points out several nice sources above, but none of them are used in this article. It could be reasonable to write about Pakistan's internet culture and use of memes (if if's even distinct from anywhere else), but that is not this article. Here is just five specific incidents. Just because something was briefly trending on Twitter does not make it a "phenomenon" or notable. Surely there are many thousands of videos that have gone viral or resulted in a hashtag, but this not the place to compile anything that "generated trolling on social media" or resulted in people making memes. The global internet culture has changed so that many topics see brief fame, but Wikipedia is not the place to synthesize them like this. Reywas92Talk01:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 2A04:4A43:8F7F:FCB8:465:8EEC:4116:BE64 presented sources that deal with the topic as a set, so that the list meets the requirement for notability. If the sources, that can be added at any time, are judged to focus only on (a list of) memes and/or the name of the page is considered inaccurate, then rename List of Internet memes in Pakistan. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)15:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I like to repeat that the article is titled Internet phenomena in Pakistan but the sources IP provided above primarily focus on some memes without mentioning the subject of the article which is Internet phenomena in Pakistan. So how can it be claimed that the list meets the requirement for notability when the coverage does not even discuss the subject? And suggesting it to rename to List of Internet memes in Pakistan raises the question of whether such lists are generally permissible? Typically, WP does not host such lists, although every country may have its own memes. This would be like having List of Internet memes in the United States or List of Internet memes in India. Pointless. Right? And sure If we were to pursue this, the list must meet WP:NLIST / WP:STANDALONE , which requires coverage directly about the list itself, not merely individual memes. This topic clearly fails WP:LISTCRITERIA so let's please avoid WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE etc. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat myself too, then. I explained why I think this list does meet WP:NLIST: there are reliable sources discussing the subject as a set. Renaming it is just an adjustment restricting the scope (memes being Internet phenomena). Permissible, yes, very much so, for the reason that it meets the guideline about lists. Feel free to create lists of Internet memes in other countries if you have the time and interest and you can find sources. It is certainly not pointless, no, since you're asking me. The rest of the guidelines you mention etc. is not exactly necessary if you read my !vote with attention but thank you for your time and effort. Should you consider replying until I agree with your view or for other reasons, I apologise in advance for not making any further comments. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)17:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, No, I don't expect you to agree with me. You've your opinion and I've mine, but I reserve the right to counter your arguments, if I see them not aligning with policy. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of Internet memes in Pakistan per Mushy Yank. Meets WP:NLIST which says ... a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. and WP:NEXIST says Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article These memes are discussed as a set in Urdu references as well such as [50], [51], [52], [53] in reputed publication like BBC Urdu. 91.74.118.185 (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To establish WP:N based on GNG, you've provided total 04 sources but all from the same publication, BBC Urdu and per GNG Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. However, that's not my primary concern. What I'm worried about is whether we truly need a List of Internet memes in Pakistan as I don't believe it still passes the WP:N test. Generally, we don't create stand-alone lists like "List of X" unless X itself is a well-established encyclopedic topic with its own standalone articles. In this case, none of the memes or phenomena have their own standalone articles, which raises concerns about potentially violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE - a policy on avoiding indiscriminate collections of information. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject fails to meet the GNG. I don't see sig/in-depth coverage. While he received a military award, so have thousands of other soldiers, but that doesn't mean we should create biographies for all of them citing ANYBIO. Fwiw- the bio contains WP:OR , contains PROMO, is unsourced and flagged for copyvio as well. Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aafi, OK, I value your opinion, but I'd like to point out that the coverage in Nawaiwaqt is a column, an opinion piece, by guest columnist Aslam Lodhi and the coverage in the other sources is either routine or trivial mentions, none of which meet the GNG criteria. These sources can indeed be used for WP:V purposes but not suitable for establishing GNG, where the threshold is higher. Anyway, I don't have anything more to add on this. As for WP:ANYBIO, I've clarified my concerns above. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib, thanks for adding these two cents. I did not say that these are enough for GNG but we have an established practice of SNGs and it is really not necessary that each and everything would pass GNG. Those that don't are finely evaluated by SNG practices of which ANYBIO is one. This subject has twice received a highest military award in their country and this is verified, and all that routine/minimal/short/whatever, information, is only helpful to support the claims. GNG is just impossible for everything, and as you say, nothing else needs to be said. If a thousand soldiers, authors or anyone else, pass any of our subjective criterias, it is really within our scope to have articles/short biographies of them created on this encyclopedia, or otherwise just collectively cancel all of these subjective criterias, if we don't want to. signed, Aafi (talk)09:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Isn't this an evidence of SIGCOV. A twice award recipient of the third highest military honor is notable. What is it with this deletion? Is there anything am missing? Sources seems to be offline. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!22:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is seriously no problem. The subject clearly passes a subjective notability criteria and GNG/SIGCOV is really not a thing here. If we discard subjective notability here, I guess a huge bulk of articles would need to be wiped up and all ther subjective criteria's discarded. signed, Aafi (talk)18:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Briefly mentioned in articles about the movie (source 7), but I don't find much of anything about this person otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aafi, But we don't have a consensus that WP:ANYBIO # 1 override the GNG requirement. WP:ANYBIO also says: Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.. Fwiw, there's an ongoing debate about this issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#WP:ANYBIO at AfD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib, thanks, this is something I was looking for. Notability is always presumed. WP:GNG also says it, "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article." However, thanks for the link and I believe the outcome of this AfD should consider the result of this discussion that you have linked. I'd be glad to change my opinion given where that discussion on WP:ANYBIO goes. signed, Aafi (talk)13:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aafi. Nawaiwaqtcovered his death, Aslam Lodhi has covered Baloch twice ([55], [56]) in Nawaiwaqt. Note, most of the coverage is in Urdu language and is clearly visible if someone searches with Urdu string ("شفقت بلوچ") on Google Books there is a lot of coverage which is visible with snippet previews. Some coverage in Phoolvisible here, some in-depth coverage here, this book describes him as a national hero in the visible snippet, this book says he fought alongside Aziz Bhatti - another national hero, this and this book describes how he fought the battle. There is plenty available on Google Books to stitch together a detailed biography about him, so clearly meets WP:BASIC which says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Thank you. 5.30.172.24 (talk) 22:59, 9 July 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, Owen×☎07:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh, just redirect this junk to Ferdinand Marcos#Prime Minister and do the same with the rest of the mass-produced inauguration substubs. They do not need separate pages just because they happened, this can be covered perfectly well in the respective articles of the presidents. Reywas92Talk14:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd blank and redirect, but it seems an unlikely search term. I simply fail to see what pupose this article serves; there is already an article on Cebu. TheLongTone (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was marked as {{db-hoax}} by Myrabert01. Not sure whether it is a hoax or not, but it is certainly unsourced and was until recently about a different station of the same name. Expert attention needed to decide what should be done here. See also the talk page. —Kusma (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I see trouble ahead. The details in the infobox do not make sense to anyone who understands the history of All TV or ABS-CBN. Even if this wasn't a hoax, I'd have problems with sourcing and possible existence thereof. I am pinging one user whom I trust to have the final word: WayKurat. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revert, then delete or redirect to a list of ABS-CBN transmitters. Even de-hoaxing it does not provide significant coverage to work from. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I also found important and notable places in Halang (in Google Maps), Like CityMall Calamba (I worked on CityMall articles and they have 10 sources max), I also found Calamba Institute and a Provincial Office.
@JWilz12345, I know that it is an administrative division, which is why I am saying that it meets WP:GEOLAND per [p]opulated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. I am using the guideline as a justification for my !vote, and the discussion you linked to was not officially closed, nor was it an official RfC in any way, so at this point WP:GEOLAND is the guideline to follow for this article. Yes, it lacks coverage, but it is presumed notable per GEOLAND. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cocobb8 so, in your opinion, is Barangay 51, Caloocan (list of Caloocan's barangays) notable too? It is a legal administrative division, with a chief local executive (a "barangay captain or chairman") and a set of elected councilors ("barangay kagawad"). The country has more than 40,000 barangays or administrative wards of the country's 1,634 incorporated places. Hard to maintain all 40K+ articles as per some concerns raised by Filipino Wikipedians in debates concerning articles of barangays of the Philippines. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)15:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: Barangays are not just "administrative" divisions like regions, but are full fledged political units like towns, cities and provinces. WP:GEOLAND has a funky definition of a "settlement". Barangay 666 in Manila is not a WP:GEOLAND settlement, as it along with 800 barangays of Manila, and perhaps 90% of the barangays in Mega Manila, are one contiguous urban sprawl. Standalone barangays in the hinterlands are WP:GEOLAND settlements if the built up area is not contiguous with the primary settlement in the town center. The question is if WP:GEOLAND is good enough if we can't write an article because there's no WP:SIGCOV from an WP:RS. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck maybe because the Philippine LGU system when it comes to municipal level is not intended as it was originally used to be. The article for the Philippine towns speaks of a former type of "town" called "municipal districts" that were mostly found in far-flung or remote areas. They were unincorporated (similar to U.S. census designated places) and were managed by tribal chieftains. It was after World War II that these unincorporated regions/districts within the provinces began to be converted to regular towns or municipalities, even those that do not comprise a single settlement but multiple barangay settlements that may not be contiguous to each other. The last of the conversions to regular municipalities were in the 1980s.
@JWilz12345, it's not about whether that is the case for other small administrative divisions. That is a larger-scale discussion, and that is not the purpose of this AfD. As I said before, I would still keep this as per the sources I found. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a previous barangay AFD like this one, and Barangay 666 in Manila is not a "settlement" for GEOLAND purposes but villages that are built up separately are. I don't have a computer with me and I won't be bothered to look it up on mobile. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cansolabao is also a village. The article should be reworked and sources added, but a village with 1,200 people would be notable in a country where the administrative boundaries aren't in wiki-dispute. SportingFlyerT·C15:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG does not actually override WP:GEOLAND - WP:GEOLAND is one of the rare exceptions and simply requires verification that this is a populated place. SportingFlyerT·C05:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is based on primary sources, including mostly from the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I found no third party coverage of notable bilateral relations, such as state visits, agreements, significant trade or migration. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems to be focusing on the Singapore organization only, when most of the Google News coverage I see is for the United States organization(s). Maybe it doesn't need to be deleted, but rearchitected to cover the PRIMARYTOPIC. Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt I declined this at AfD some time ago as lacking depth of coverage. There are a bunch more sources in the current article than the abandoned Draft:XDC Network, but they don't seem very independent or are just passing mentions. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep also : Not sure why there are profiles, but there appear to be Il Sole 24 Ore covering his return from America, il Fatto Quotidiano covering Italy 2030, what appears to be a book review I'm not sure of the independence of. Along with another book review, these are the only independent reliable sources the book has. Given a couple news stories about him and a number of sources on his books, it seems reasonable to write a short article. He seems to be notable for maybe the Italy 2030 project and his popular books?
Given the large number of sources, I wonder if it's possible to show they pass Wikipedia:Notability_(books)? That would pretty much resolve this debate, because this article would obviously contain the books. And given he has his own news sources, it seems reasonable to also discuss him.
Per WP:GNG, before you nominate articles for deletion, you really should search in the native language of the topic. As you're the one making the proposal, I'd argue the burden of proof is on you to follow through with it. With machine translation it's really not that hard, as you only need a high-level understanding of what each source says. Almost every day I see deletion nominations like these.
Weak delete – I am not an expert at Korean sources and cannot quite tell you which of these sources are reliable right now, but this is what I'm finding:
sisaprime.co.kr, listed entry that is given ridiculously high praise (Google Translate gives me Kakao Webtoon, which has created major action/martial arts/fantasy masterpieces that will leave a lasting mark in webtoon history, such as .. Red Storm. Segye.com might be a copy, extremely similar text)
I currently have no idea which of these are reliable, but sourcing is fairly weak either way. If someone can find better sources I haven't found yet, I'd be happy to see them. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Coverage in a newspaper from Uganda [68], doesn't appear to be a "pay to publish" article, I suppose Ugandans watch South Korean online manga-type stories? Oaktree b (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Observer.ug article is a coverage of a different comic. Red Storm is only mentioned. The second source is just a single-sentence announcement. Neocorelight (Talk) 01:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:LASTING is likely satisfied as per the sentence, The tragedy was notable for prompting safety measures in Seoul to prevent future vehicle accidents, and for highlighting the prevalence of traffic accidents caused by senior citizens and about potential programs to promote voluntary withdrawal of their driver's licenses.[6] It was also notable for investigations into derogatory statements left at the makeshift memorial for the tragedy and on online communities, prompting arrests for defamation charges.[7] In addition, the article has 26 textual citations, some from international news sources, and the collision caused 9 deaths with the potential for up to 12. 69.118.230.235 (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of legislation per WP:EFFECT.Comment I disagree with some of the defense of this article. I don't agree that the derogitory remarks or the investigations into them count as notability per WP:EFFECT. Those are just things that happened, not impact on society/legislation.
What legislation? The article only mentions investigations and an emergency order, none of which is legislation. This occurred less than a week ago. I'm not aware of any jurisdiction which passes legislation that quickly, except in extraordinary circumstances. This is just another news story that will be forgotten about by the time there's any lasting impact. That's the reason for all the Wikilawyering and other maneuvering I see going on, just like any number of other news stories that are (almost) immediately AFD'ed and defended based on the mere presence of X number of citations. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all executive actions are created equal. You cannot seriously be comparing an executive action in the aftermath of WWII by one of the most important figures of the 20th century to this. These orders are also more fragile than robust legislation. It also doesn't help that Korea engages in action theater often after these kinds of incidents.
Delete In my opinion, this document is not described from a neutral point of view, because I think that quoting news that has brought about a community response on the Internet and writing down the Derogatory Remarks category hurts neutrality.
I think you meant to say "the NPOV issues should be fixed, and not contribute to article deletion". I still think the article leans towards draftify/delete, regardless of the POV expressed in the article. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable award which effectively serves the purpose of rewarding people who promote tourism in Seoul. The awards don't seem to have any significant coverage in third-party sources aside from trivial mentions and promotional pieces. There are no mainspace pages that link to the article either, apart from List of awards and nominations received by NewJeans. The article has only had a few edits made since its creation 15 years ago, mostly by bots. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of notability. I encourage you to search for articles about the award in Korean; the award has a ton of non trivial and non (at least it seems like) promotional coverage.
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.
Keep Needs searches in the Korean language. Try googling "인피니트헬스"; you get much more results. [74][75][76][77][78][79] I am mindful of the fact that the page is tainted by a paid creator, but it doesn't read excessively complimentary to me on a quick glance. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[1] and [6] are press release, [2] is about the CEO, and I have reservation on [3] and [4] as routine stock coverage. [5] is good and I did not see it before: changing my vote. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: while the article is short and incomplete I do believe the subject itself doesn't violet the notability guidelines for companies as it is a a public company with some coverage, but it should be improved and expanded. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 14:22, 28 June 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.
Non-notable band. Article was moved from draft space and I originally returned it. After examining the article I noticed that it claim the band started 6 December 2023. However, the the only reference was published 2 February 2021. This was at least 17 months before auditions started. In addition the reference seemed to be about three young women and not twelve young men. The article provides no references for a band that has only released two singles and was created by a non-notable reality show, 789 SURVIVAL. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva22:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Their music have already been released. The band was split into 2 different subunits: BUS5 and BUS7. It should be easier to find sources from these 2 names. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Should not linger in mainspace with WP:V problems that are basic in nature: Who are Bus? Are they one or two groups? Who are in those two groups? Geschichte (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Was not notable a year ago; all that's changed since then is running for re-election. Frankly, the list of military medals isn't notable, but it makes up a good third of the article. The rest is a biography. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It makes sense to have an article for Cao because he vastly overperformed against Wexton in ‘22 and he is now the nominee for Senate. Joe Kent of Washington, who is not a horribly notable figure has his own page and they both have somewhat similar political backgrounds.
Keep. The subject seems to meet WP:GNG§WP:SIGCOV guidelines through his major political party nomination in two national elections and the coverage of him in the interim with a decent amount of coverage in foreign media. WP:POLITICIAN reads "being...an unelected candidate for political office...does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". WP:ROTM § Political candidates is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and even it does not preclude articles for non-incumbent candidates if GNG standards are met. — AjaxSmack01:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While ROTM is not a policy or guideline, it gives the condition that The person was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for other reasons as it is. So, not just meeting GNG for the election coverage itself like you seem to imply. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is a US Senator candidate, covered in a lot of articles. Thus, saying that he is not well-known is a weak view. People may need to search for more details about him to have a better decision in the election or for other reasons. I think content about him as a politician will increase significantly in the near future. Given that he has some possibility to be a senator in the near future, deletion of his page at the moment is not a good choice. Zenms (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Fails on WP:NPOL as he hasn't been elected. Creator can draftify and if he gets elected can update (removing articles he wrote used as sources) and reinstate it Mztourist (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOL reads any subject "can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". That's the argument here. Falling back on a rote interpretation of WP:NPOL makes life easy (and I opposed this article in the previous AfD on that basis), but it is not a faithful interpretation of GNG which calls for "significant coverage". On the one hand, all 100 of Virginia's state delegates have articles pro forma, but by and large fail GNG (e.g. Barry Knight, Alex Askew) and on the other hand we have a subject here who is a far more significant political figure, has been a serious major party candidate twice (with coverage of his sometimes unusual statements and questionable actions in the interim) and has been the sole subject of numerous articles in national publications. — AjaxSmack15:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has been very notable domestically, and I have seen a few sources internationally mentioning him as well. He made big headlines in 2022, and has been generating many large headlines from numerous large media corporations about his candidacy for US Senate. 1980RWR (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should be redirected to 2024 United States Senate election in Virginia as he is not notable at this time based on our understanding of GNG, current political candidates, and WP:POLOUTCOMES "Candidates who are running or unsuccessfully ran for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having presumptive notability and are often deleted or merged ... into articles detailing the specific race in question, such as 2010 United States Senate election in Nevada." That said, I have come to the conclusion that it is rarely worth the effort to debate US Senatorial candidates who have won their major party's primary during the period between the primary and the general election. There are editors who suggest that just being a nominee is sufficient for an article, despite there being no policy or guideline asserting this view. So, at this point, I think it is better to use the editing process from keeping these articles from becoming repositories of campaign brochures (or a series of political statements or positions) and refrain from bringing these cases to AFD until the election. --Enos733 (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious about your opinion on a couple of points. Firstly, though "candidate...are not viewed as having presumptive notability", do you think a candidate can be notable on WP:SIGCOV merits on a case-by-case basis? Secondly, you say we should "refrain from bringing these cases to AFD until after the election", but I would argue that losing an election cannot remove notability; conversely if Hung Cao is going to be non-notable after losing, then he's not notable now either and the article should be deleted now per WP:NOTNEWS. Should articles be permitted to exist only for a campaign period? (I'm asking this seriously and not trying to be argumentative.) — AjaxSmack15:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do think that a candidate (who is not already notable) can pass WP:SIGCOV as a candidate, but in my mind this is a very high bar, usually with substantial international coverage (see Christine O'Donnell), but could be demonstrated in other ways, such as academic writings, notable documentaries, or similar coverage after the campaign is completed. I think that many political candidates are low profile individuals and the coverage they receive is for their participation in WP:BIO1E one event. As to the second question, my position is that it grows increasingly difficult to hold a AFD (in the US) the closer we get to election day, especially with US Senate candidates who are nominated by either the Republican or Democratic parties. Because notability is not temporary, we should be careful with our assessment of notability, especially of political candidates who may not pass a ten-year test of significance and may quickly fade back to obscurity. All of this is why I think the pages about the campaign can be expanded to discuss the race, the candidates, and the issues. - Enos733 (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also say that it is possible that a candidate that has a weak claim to pass GNG prior to the campaign could meet our notability standards with coverage of the campaign. But in this scenario, we would be looking for at least one substantive source prior to the candidate filing for office. - Enos733 (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I like your idea that "the pages about the campaign can be expanded to discuss the race, the candidates, and the issues". Many of those "articles" largely resemble machine-generated lists of figures. I agree that many losing candidates in single elections are like WP:BIO1E cases, but in this case you have a major-party candidate performing well in two different elections. There comes a point where something can render a candidate notable during or between campaigns, but I'm not quite sure where the line is. (In an extreme case, if a candidate shot an irate debate watcher during a campaign, it would make the candidate notable even if the shooting without that political context wasn't notable.) What bothers me is the lack of judgement that results in four-sentence (non-)articles for non-notable incumbents like this and this while suppressing articles on non-incumbents who have received widespread, sustained news coverage. I support general rules to control the number of articles, but there should be leeway for exceptions that rests on the spirit and not just the letter of these rules. — AjaxSmack16:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those incumbents are notable, though, though Will Davis is very hard to search for. They just have underdeveloped articles, and those articles may not ever be a featured article, but they don't fail GNG. Senate candidates face a massive recentism and a "you can't make yourself notable" problem, and at some point, we do keep failed perennial candidates. SportingFlyerT·C16:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL defers to the GNG in the case of unelected candidates. I'm just not sure how Hung Cao doesn't meet GNG with the number and quality of citations already in the article. It contrasts starkly with Davis et al who would fail GNG in most other situations but who gets an ex officio a free pass by NPOL. — AjaxSmack02:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of material about elected federal and state legislators. And, there is an extensive public record of legislators votes and speeches. There is also some real-world considerations as well - as there is value to readers to know who is passing legislation. - Enos733 (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extensive reliable sources. It's been the practice of Wikipedia to have articles for first-time US Senate candidates with a lot of reliable sources ever since 2020 when the AfD for Theresa Greenfield was overturned. -LtNOWIS (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I really disagree with the belief that U.S. Senate nominees in competitive states should be considered automatically notable. They seem notable at the time, but if/when they lose, it becomes evident that they are not. I mean really, is anyone searching for Theresa Greenfield anymore? I don't think Hung Cao is notable enough outside of this election. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the current election as a viable ATD or delete - being an unelected candidate anywhere does not guarantee notability, and keeping a page up in case an election is won violates our policy that once you're notable, you're always notable, as some !keep articles have mentioned. I also disagree there's any sort of an exception for American senate candidates as they can be adequately covered on the page for the election. SportingFlyerT·C16:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything. If you think the article merits keeping, then remove the {{prod}} template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
jomhornews.com, 
m.kun.uz, 
trt.net.tr, and 
sport.kg. Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
