Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 78.26 (talk | contribs) at 02:13, 22 May 2024 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoor Pari (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< May 14 May 16 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Hot 100 number-ones by British artists

List of Billboard Hot 100 number-ones by British artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of Billboard Hot 100 number-ones by Australian artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of Billboard Hot 100 number-ones by Canadian artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Billboard Hot 100 number-ones by European artists, it seems worth giving these three a look as well. Given their distinct lack of sourcing, similar to the European list, I have a feeling they will go down as trivial just the same. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:53, 15 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! 23:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AC Ventures (company)

Previous AfDs for this article:
AC Ventures (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deleted twice under the name AC Ventures as WP:ADMASQ and failing WP:NCORP, and the current version seems no different. In particular, all sources here were already considered and rejected at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AC Ventures (2nd nomination). jlwoodwa (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted a source assessment table: jlwoodwa (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"AC Ventures reaches first close of a $250M fund for Southeast Asian startups". techcrunch.com. 14 September 2022. ~ WP:TECHCRUNCH, see prev ~ WP:TECHCRUNCH, see prev No about fund, see prev ✘ No
"AC Ventures' Journey With Adrian Li: Fueling Growth and Impact in Southeast Asia". AsiaTechDaily - Asia's Leading Tech and Startup Media Platform. 9 February 2024. No blog, see prev No blog, see prev ✘ No
Shu, Catherine (23 January 2024). "AC Ventures closes its new $210M Indonesia-focused fund". TechCrunch. ~ WP:TECHCRUNCH, see prev ~ WP:TECHCRUNCH, see prev No about fund ✘ No
Rosendar, Yessar. "Indonesian VC Firm AC Ventures Closes $205 Million Fund, On The Hunt For Early Stage Startups". Forbes. No WP:FORBESCON No WP:FORBESCON ✘ No
Staff, TechNode Global (2024-01-23). "AC Ventures raises $210M to back tech-enabled businesses in Indonesia and Southeast Asia". TNGlobal. Retrieved 2024-05-15. No press release aggregator, see prev No press release aggregator, see prev ✘ No
"AC Ventures raises US$210 million for fifth investment fund". The Business Times. 2024-01-23. Retrieved 2024-05-15. No press release ? no discussion ✘ No
Mulia, Khamila (2021-12-01). "Indonesia's AC Ventures closes third fund at USD 205 million". KrASIA. Retrieved 2024-05-15. No see prev ? see prev ✘ No
"AC Ventures launches advisor community to help startups achieve operational excellence from day one". Asia Food Journal. 2023-02-21. Retrieved 2024-05-15. No press release ? no discussion ✘ No
"Indonesia's AC Ventures said to have closed fifth fund at around $200m". DealStreetAsia. No see prev ? no discussion ? paywall ✘ No
"AC Ventures raises US$210mil to back founders in Indonesia and Southeast Asia". Digital News Asia. 28 January 2024. No press release ? no discussion ✘ No
"AC Ventures' Pandu Sjahrir on Asean's Economic Resilience". www.bloomberg.com. No see prev ~ see prev ✘ No
"Tech in Asia - Connecting Asia's startup ecosystem". www.techinasia.com. No see prev ? see prev No about report ✘ No
Yong, Yimie (25 May 2023). "Tech sector may be in 'funding winter' but AC Ventures sees opportunities in EV, circular economy & sustainable agriculture, says Managing Partner [Q&A]". TNGlobal. No press release aggregator, see prev No press release aggregator, see prev ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
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. Given sources provided. It would have helped if the nominator and other participants had taken the time to evaluate them after they were provided and the discussion relisted. Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sept Days

Sept Days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No SIGCOV. Northern Moonlight 23:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Guo, Yanxi 郭妍汐; Liu, Jinpeng 刘金鹏 (2016-10-14). "七天•10周年：加拿大七天文化传媒2006-2016" [Sept Days·10th Anniversary: Canadian Sept Days Cultural Media 2006–2016]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22.

      The article notes: "《七天》报创刊于2006年7月7日。刊头为中英法三语《Sept七天 Days》, 以体现《七天》生活在加拿大多元文化的氛围之中，又由于《七天》是在官方语言为法语的加拿大魁北克省注册，因此法语优先。《七天》报为周报，一周七天，其含义是关注和涵盖生活的每一天。"

      From Google Translate: ""Sept Days" newspaper was founded on 7 July 2006. The masthead is "Sept Days" in Chinese, English and French to reflect that "Sept Days" lives in a multicultural atmosphere in Canada. And because "Sept Days" is registered in the Canadian province of Quebec, where the official language is French, French is given priority. "Sept Days" is a weekly newspaper, seven days a week, which means to pay attention to and cover every day of life."

      The article notes: "2007年，七天派记者奔赴阿富汗战场，对有加拿大军队参加的这场战争的性质和意义进行了零距离的观察和报道，七天记者胡宪成为海外华文媒体战地记者第一人；"

      From Google Translate: "In 2007, Sept Days sent reporters to the battlefield in Afghanistan to conduct close-up observations and reports on the nature and significance of the war involving Canadian troops. Sept Days reporter Hu Xian became the first overseas Chinese-language media war correspondent;"

    2. Cong, Ling 葱岭 (2021-09-06). "加拿大蒙城，一位金融人的华丽变身" [Montreal, Canada, a financial man's gorgeous transformation]. Xinmin Evening News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22.

      The article notes: "这是一家活跃在加拿大法语城市蒙特利尔的华文媒体，创办16年，累计出版了上千期的中法文报纸杂志和8部书籍。它是第一个向阿富汗派出战地记者的海外华文媒体，也是两次受邀随加拿大总理访华的当地华文媒体。它创办读者俱乐部，举办了几十场各类文化、体育、商务活动，成了当地华人的联系纽带和精神家园。"

      From Google Translate: "This is a Chinese-language media active in Montreal, a French-speaking city in Canada. It was founded 16 years ago and has published thousands of issues of Chinese and French newspapers and magazines and 8 books. It is the first overseas Chinese-language media to send war correspondents to Afghanistan, and it is also the local Chinese-language media twice invited to visit China with the Canadian Prime Minister. It established readers’ clubs and held dozens of cultural, sports, and business activities of various types, becoming a link and spiritual home for local Chinese."

      The article notes: "2006年，尹灵再次辞职，创办华文报纸《七天》。那年，她40岁。"

      From Google Translate: "In 2006, Yin Ling resigned again and founded the Chinese newspaper "Sept Days". That year, she was 40 years old."

      The article notes: "《七天》从一开始就摒弃了很多海外中文报纸翻译本地新闻、复制粘贴的做法，坚持自己采访、自己撰稿，一下子吸引了大批读者。"

      From Google Translate: "From the beginning, "Sept Days" abandoned many overseas Chinese newspapers' practices of translating local news and copying and pasting. It insisted on doing its own interviews and writing its own articles, and it suddenly attracted a large number of readers."

    3. Xu, Chang-an 徐长安 (2016-10-29). "加拿大《七天》传媒发布法文报《La Connexion》" [Canada's "Sept Days" media releases French newspaper "La Connexion"] (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22 – via Sina Corporation.

      The article notes: "蒙特利尔华文媒体《七天》传媒10月28日晚在当地举行晚宴，庆祝该报创立10周年。该报新创办的法文报纸《La Connexion》也正式发布。加拿大总理多为《七天》10周年庆祝活动发来贺信。特鲁多说，值此《七天》传媒10周年之际，"

      From Google Translate: "Montreal Chinese-language media "Sept Days" held a dinner locally on the evening of October 28 to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the newspaper's founding. The newspaper's new French-language newspaper "La Connexion" was also officially launched. The Prime Minister of Canada has sent congratulatory messages to celebrate the 10th anniversary of "Sept Days". Trudeau said that on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of "Sept Days" media,"

    4. Li, Dan 李丹 (2016-11-10). "加拿大七天传媒成立十周年庆典在蒙特利尔举行" [The 10th anniversary celebration of Sept Days in Canada was held in Montreal]. 美中时报 [Sino-US Times] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22.

      The article notes: "《七天》是世界各国领导人访问加拿大时的必邀华文媒体。中国国务院总理李克强在2016年9月23日访问加拿大时，亦特邀《七天》参与了华文媒体座谈会。"

      From Google Translate: ""Sept Days" is the Chinese-language media that must be invited when world leaders visit Canada. When Chinese Premier Li Keqiang visited Canada on September 23, 2016, he specially invited "Seven Days" to participate in a Chinese media symposium."

    5. "New voices, expanding horizons. When Sept Days sent Montreal journalist Xian Hu to Afghanistan last December, the weekly Chinese newspaper was not only making a statement to its competitors in the community here, but to mainstream newspapers as well". The Gazette. 2008-02-23. Archived from the original on 2012-11-05. Retrieved 2024-05-22.

      The article notes: "Sept Days competes with five other Chinese newspapers in a market of no more than 100,000 potential readers. Its three full-time journalists and five freelancers focus on a mix of local, international and entertainment news. Ten thousand copies are printed of each issue and, according to Yin, 50,000 people read the paper each week. The paper is free of charge, and advertising and investments from the paper's board of directors keep it afloat, but Yin admits that it has yet to break even. Sending Hu to Afghanistan was an unusual step for an ethnic newspaper, but it has earned Sept Days a certain notoriety in the Chinese community. Last month, the paper sponsored a lecture by Hu on her experience in Kabul, and this month, it will send another reporter overseas to cover the presidential election in Taiwan."

    6. Lum, Zi-Ann; Taylor-Vaisey, Nick; Duggan, Kyle (2023-06-23). "Fixer upper on the Hill". Politico. Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22.

      The article notes: "Conservative Sen. Victor Oh was in Montreal earlier this month to drum up enthusiasm for Saturday’s rally on the Hill. His visit was covered by Sept Days, a Montreal Chinese-language publisher with links to the Chinese Community Party. Sept Days was among a handful of Canadian organizations that attended the Chinese government’s United Front Work Department media forum training in 2019, according to a recent report by Alliance Canada Hong Kong."

    7. Yu, Ruidong 余瑞冬 (2018-06-24). "《加拿大华人精英录》一书在蒙特利尔首发" [The book "A Record of Canadian Chinese Elites" was launched in Montreal] (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22 – via Phoenix Television.

      The article notes: "由加拿大七天传媒出版社出版的《加拿大华人精英录》一书于当地时间6月22日晚在蒙特利尔首发，正式与读者见面。"

      From Google Translate: "The book "Canadian Chinese Elites" published by Canada's Seven Days Media Publishing House was first launched in Montreal on the evening of June 22, local time, and officially met with readers."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sept Days (Chinese: 七天) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow time to assess identified sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and I have also semi'ed it to stop the disruption. I don't involve a relist as Involved, but if someone else does feel free to revisit Star Mississippi 03:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. This is a close one, but given the additional sources and expansion of the article, the arguments to keep the article have more weight. An alternative take would be that there is no consensus, but my read is that the additional sources identified have changed things. Malinaccier (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Orzech

AfDs for this article:
Artur Orzech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL reality show host. Fails WP:GNG. 178.164.179.49 (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which reality show? He did not nor does he currently host a reality show. He is an accomplished artist and journalist with very wide recognition in Poland and pretty cult following because of his hosting of the Eurovision transmissions. I wholeheartedly disagree with RUNOFTHEMILL label. 84.188.101.102 (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Keep. A well-known Polish presenter and Eurovision Song Contest long-running commentator having commentated 26 contests. If we consider this RUNOFTHEMILL, we will need also to consider Peter Urban (presenter), José Luis Uribarri, José María Íñigo and many other well-known Eurovision Song Contest commentators' articles for deletion. Qcumber (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Well-known" is not a valid reason for deletion. And don't do the Pokemon test. - 178.164.179.49 (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, sir/madam, please, be polite. And explain me what does it mean "pokemon test". And if we need to consider this article for deletion, why don't we need to consider for deletion the articles I mentioned above then?
Thanks! Qcumber (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that the article is not expanded enough. Because of this 2021 events take the most part of the article. It's not good. The label prompts that someone will at least take the information from Polish Wiki. But I agree with 84.188.101.102 - I don't think that there is a srong reason to delete the article with RUNOFTHEMILL . Qcumber (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Source in the article are routine mill entertainment news, promo, nothing that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth by independent reliable sources. BEFORE found similar, but nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  15:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Could find more and better sources than on e.g. Fredrik Renander or Amun Abdullahi.Atlassian (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's focus on existing sourcs that establish notability, not on a subject's reputation or notoriety.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A quick googling showed many sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9].
As well as article collections with and about him [10], [11], etc. Atlassian (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't consider myself competent to evaluate their quality, but taken on face value, the Polish Wikipedia version of this page appears more thoroughly referenced. Lubal (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously passes GNG per sources on our WP page and Polish page, which also include a printed encyclopedia, more is easily findable via Google (see Atlassian examples above). The RUNOFTHEMILL label seems like an excuse to ignore the coverage and not provide an adequate deletion rationale, and describing the subject as a 'reality show host' shows that the IP (who has since made a lot of questionable edits) didn't even bother to read the page, let alone do a minimal WP: BEFORE. --Cavarrone 07:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First thoughts: this article in its current form is rather lopsided to focus on the "dismissal" and reads more like a news article about that occurrence rather than being a biography about Orzech. After review: other editors are correct in pointing out that the sources used here (and actually in the Polish Wiki as well) are passing mentions that he served as commentator, mainly for Eurovision. While at first I was impressed with the size of the Polish Wiki page and the idea that perhaps his bio was more developed there, it is in fact just a prose version of a list of times he'd provided commentary or hosted a program; more like a resume than a biographical overview. The provided sources do not go into any depth about the positions to establish his notability; the sources are instead about the events he was part of. Overall, I do not believe that the subject meets GNG and NBIO. Grk1011 (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per coverage which are extensive. Per sourcing which are third party and reliable. Overall I would say WP:GNG applies.BabbaQ (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I would concur with Grk1011's assessment of the article. The parts on his background and career at TVP are wholly unsourced, and background is also wholly unsourced on the Polish article. Even within the Polish article, which would be the main start for improving this article, it reads more like a CV/resume than an article, and there are large chunks which are unsourced and thus fails WP:VERIFY. WP:BLP, and specifically WP:BLPRS, means that we have to have sources for any information which is potentially challengeable, which would result in cause for the the first two paragraphs to be likely for removal. Taking that aside, we then have an article which is exclusively about the subject's issues with TVP management and the resultant removal from TVP and return following the change in government; having an article with only this means it would fail on WP:SIGCOV. In general I don't believe even with the sourcing available on the Polish Wikipedia or mentioned here that there is enough verifiable referencing to pass WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. He is important enough that his departure from TVP in 2021 was covered by Polish newspaper of reknown, Gazeta Wyborcza, [12], and said article even included a (very short, yes) paragraph about his background (earlier career). Considering other sources present, I think the notability is here, sufficient if not impressive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is very popular and recognizable journalist and presenter in Poland. Besides, he is an iranologist and authored a book about Iran, as well as a musician, member of popular rock band. I have expanded the article basing on its Polish version and added some sources. Niegodzisie (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the appreciated expansion by Niegodzisie. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:54, 3 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.
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 K. S. Sethumadhavan#Selected filmography. Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manini (1979 film)

AfDs for this article:
Manini (1979 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found listings, interviews, nothing that addresses the subject indepth meeting WP:SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  08:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different Redirect target articles suggested. We need to settle on one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 15 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 Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2009. Star Mississippi 15:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Peshawar judicial complex bombing

2009 Peshawar judicial complex bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2009#November, where it is mentioned. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. The consensus is to Keep this article but also that it needs improvement. Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russian interference in European politics

Russian interference in European politics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Came across this article when doing research on the Mueller special counsel investigation. The page contains way too many quotations, close paraphrasing and improper use of a non-free source, and overall fails WP:GNG. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 13:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

70.26.38.47 (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 15 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 02:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aja Aja Tayo!

Aja Aja Tayo! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV DonaldD23 talk to me 23:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Source
Facebook 1. "AJA AJA Tayo on Facebook". Facebook. Archived from the original on April 27, 2022.[user-generated source]
"Donny join reality show" - promotional mill news, fails WP:SIRS 2. ^ "Robi, Donny join reality show 'Aja Aja Tayo Sa Jeju', make Korea happy" . INQUIRER.net . March 10, 2021 . Retrieved May 12, 2024 .
Promotional mill news, interview, fails WP:SIRS 3. ^ "Filipino reality show hosts discover real, raw Korea". koreatimes. March 15, 2019. Retrieved May 12, 2024.
Youtube, Promotional mill news, fails WP:SIRS 4. ^ ABS-CBN Entertainment . "Aja! Aja! Let's Go To Jeju Trailer" . YouTube . Retrieved March 4, 2021 .
Promotional about finale, fails WP:SIRS 5. ^ ""Ang Sa Iyo Ay Akin" finale, "Huwag Kang Mangamba" and "Aja Aja Tayo sa Jeju" will be shown first on iWantTFC" . ABS-CBN Corporation . Retrieved March 10, 2021 .
Promotional mill news, interview, fails WP:SIRS 6. ^ "Donny Pangilinan proud to be part of new Filipino-Korean variety show 'Aja Aja Tayo sa Jeju'". push.abs-cbn.com. Retrieved March 3, 2021.
Promotional mill news, interview, fails WP:SIRS 7. ^ "Robi Domingo and Donny Pangilinan talk about travel and new reality show "Aja! Come on! Let's go to Jeju!"". ABS-CBN Entertainment. Retrieved March 12, 2021.
Promotional mill news, interview, fails WP:SIRS 8. ^ "Donny, Kristel, Shine, and Robi take viewers to South Korea in 'Aja! Aja! Tayo sa Jeju'". ABS-CBN Corporation. Retrieved March 17, 2021.
Promotional, fails WP:SIRS 9. ^ CC, JE (March 22, 2021). "REVIEW: Aja! Aja! Let's go to Jeju! Fun and Thrilling South Korean Adventure" . LionhearTV . Retrieved May 12, 2024 .
Promotional must see tv type article, fails WP:SIRS 10. ^ "Five reasons why Aja aja Tayo is a must see for Filipino viewers - Oppa Is Life". July 22, 2018. Retrieved May 12, 2024.
Nothing found in article or BEFORE meeting WP:SIRS.  // Timothy :: talk  12:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Delete as per nom it fails WP:GNG.Sanwalniazik (talk)

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 00:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of Camden, New Jersey

Culture of Camden, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like a copy/paste from Camden,_New_Jersey#Culture Gjs238 (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Other than the article's creator, editors have found the level of coverage in RS to be lacking. signed, Rosguill talk 14:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Food For Thought (artwork)

Food For Thought (artwork) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability. I'd redirect this to the perp's page, but there is not anything about this work there. Searches throw up zip. TheLongTone (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a more apt citation for that? That is a travel/promotional magazine, not an art magazine. Also, that article does not mention this work of art. Lamona (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've found some more links rectifying Wanås Sculpture Park as, atleast, internationally reknowned [18], [19],[20]. MusicFromOutoftheOpera (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, you can't use the same notability reference to an artpiece almost 30-years-old but I've done what I could providing proof of this artwork's legacy albeit its growing age. MusicFromOutoftheOpera (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you have provided fit with the Wikipedia definition of reliable source and none mention this sculpture. I don't think this helps. Lamona (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment Having something in this sculpture park might help in establishing the notability of an artist with a work there but does not establish the notability of the work.TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough reception to ascertain standalone notability at the moment. I checked the Swedish Mediearkivet, where a two-sentence mention in Expressen came up. "Tydligast blir det kanske i Matthew McCaslins Food for thought, där en videofilmad pastoral idyll har fått sig tillsatt gödselessens i form av halmbalar - utan att det riktigt framgår om det är de betande korna eller deras medialisering som är "poängen", för att säga det på skånska. En poäng i sig, skulle det säkert kunna hävdas - men den förefaller mig i så fall ganska trivial". This is something, although certainly not in-depth. Food For Thought is mentioned at Wanås Castle#Selection of the outdoors exhibitions which shows that almost none of the artworks have their own pages; by the way I don't trust the notion that Wanås is "the leading international sculpture park" either. Geschichte (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. WP:TRAINWRECK Most of the pages in this multi-AfD have not been discussed, and opinion is split among the ones that have been discussed. signed, Rosguill talk 14:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2MASX J22550681+0058396

2MASX J22550681+0058396 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These galaxies are purely catalog entries and do not meet the astronomical object notability guidelines. User_talk:Galaxybeing has created a whole bunch of such stubs, and I'm going to request deletion of all the ones that I see without a specific secondary source that makes them even barely notable (e.g. IRAS_14348-1447 which at least has a couple of references that specifically mention it in the title).

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are not notable, for the same reasons as above. I'll also note that just having one or more supernovae in them does not make a galaxy notable either: we're currently finding tens of thousands of supernovae per year, and when LSST comes online next year, that will increase by an order of magnitude.

MCG_-03-04-014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IC 3683 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IC 4588 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2MASX J05210136-2521450 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IC 3222 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IC 1050 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IC 3622 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
UGC 9684 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IC 2816 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IC 3505 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IC 2498 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IC 3275 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NGC 7222 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NGC 3978 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Arp 60 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IC 2759 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NGC 3509 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Parejkoj (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: of these objects, UGC 9684 has multiple sources (mainly about supernovae events), and thus may be notable per WP:GNG. The others were found lacking in substantial references. Praemonitus (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I noted, just having supernovae in it does not make a galaxy notable. UGC 9684 has an ESA press release, but I don't see any papers about the galaxy itself. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: According to ESA press release, it is known UGC 9684 is one of the supernova producing galaxies in which SN 2020pni is quite notable. Also there is a Universe guide article for that galaxy. This article can be expended should more sources be found for UGC 9684. Galaxybeing (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. 2MASX J05210136-2521450 and 2MASX J22550681+0058396 is a luminous infrared and post starburst galaxy respectively, therefore they are notable. Both have ESA press releases and I also found secondary sources for them. As for the IC galaxy objects, I know the German wikipedia has all of the articles and therefore should be kept for future studies despite not being notable. MCG -03-04-014 is classified as a luminous galaxy and should be kept as well. Galaxybeing (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are thousands of known LIRGs, they're more numerous even than quasars ref. Same with post-starburst galaxies. Those are not inclusion criteria and do not confer notability per WP:NASTRO. Wikipedia does not and should not have an article about every galaxy in those classes. Modest Genius talk 12:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Universe Guide is not a reliable source. See this page. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I saw your comment, but in the case of UGC 9684 I disagreed. The notability requirements are based on satisfying WP:GNG, rather than prioritization in terms of astronomy research. Multiple supernovae events hosted by a galaxy may provide sufficient substantial coverage, particularly when combined with being the subject of a Hubble image and article. Praemonitus (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, the notability is presumed if a topic satisties the general notability guideline or any subject-notability guideline (SNG), such as WP:NASTRO. If an astronomical object satisfies any criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects) it is presumed to be notable, even if it doesn't meet the WP:GNG criteria. As the name suggests, it is a general guideline, not an absolute one. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you may be misinterpreting my remarks. WP:NASTRO does not override WP:GNG; it's a supplement, as it says in the lead paragraph. If an article satisfies WP:GNG, then it satisfies the notability requirements, regardless of priority to the astronomy community. Praemonitus (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I possibly misinterpreted your remark. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from the Hubble/ESA publication, there is significant commentary on UGC 9684 in this paper, so keep. C messier (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find any sources on google. User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 14:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added another block of sources to the deletion request. Assuming User:Praemonitus's argument about UGC 9684 regarding "a lot of supernovae make it notable", I'd say that at best one in ten of User:Galaxybeing's new pages (of which there are over a hundred) are notable, probably more like one in twenty. I'll also note that many of these pages include non-reliable sources as part of their pile of links (e.g. Universe Guide, Go-astronomy, In-the-sky, and cseligman). I don't know of a process for it, but I would argue that all of the new pages created by User:Galaxybeing should be deleted, and they should have to be proposed for creation based on notability (assuming User:Praemonitus argument above holds, which I still disagree with, but not strongly). - Parejkoj (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Parejkoj: This deletion request is a bit of a mess. I would nominate objects (if nominate at all) that have been the subject of Hubble/ESA picture of the week separately, and so I would NGC objects. C messier (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: MCG -03-04-014 (aka IRAS F01076-1707) is a bit borderline. There is the Hubble/ESA page and it has been included in low volume galaxy studies. From what I found this one has the most commentary on the object. --C messier (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • NGC 3509 has been included in some low volume galaxy studies. Three offer significant commentary on the object
So keep. C messier (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, so three keeps from you then? Praemonitus (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Four, UGC 9684, NGC 3509, 2MASX J22550681+0058396, and 2MASX J05210136-252450. Neutral about MCG -03-04-014. C messier (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. I see opinions on two different articles but there are 17 included in this bundled nomination. I suggest this nomination is withdrawn and individual AFDs are started or, at least smaller bundles of very similar articles. With only 1 or 2 articles soliciting comments, this is likely to close as No consensus for the entire bundle.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can try to do that, but given the large number of these new articles, it's a pain to sort them into bundles. I don't know if there's a tool that would make it easier than my manual "copy AFD templates and summaries across pages" process that I used for this one, but doing that for all of the >100 articles would be very slow. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:Galaxybeing, could you please say something about how you are creating these articles, and how you are choosing objects to make pages for? It looks like you've made over 20 new articles in the past week, many of which have the same problems I listed above (all of your new IC pages, for example). Those new IC articles are just stubs that summarize their catalog entries, and I would add all of them to a deletion request like this one. How are you pulling together that summary information so quickly? - Parejkoj (talk) 17:59, 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! 23:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Capstick-Dale

Nick Capstick-Dale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being the 316th wealthiest person does not guarantee notability. Subject fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Only two sources from the Evening Standard may establish notability, but one is an interview. All others are brief statements, mentions, a listing, and unreliable content. ToadetteEdit! 17:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uzma Beg

Uzma Beg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So at first glance, this BLP looks legit but upon but digging deeper, I couldn't find any major roles in TV shows or movies as required per WP:ACTOR. Also, when I tried to find more about the subject per WP:BEFORE, I didn't come across enough coverage to meet WP:GNG either. Plus, it's worth noting that this BLP was created back in 2021 by a SPA Sahgalji (talk · contribs) and has been mostly edited by UPEs so there's COI issues as well. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Chupke Chupke, Pyari Mona, Hum Tum.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC) (Again, sorry but so many Afds related to Pakistan/TV series, I might not reply here any further, should you, as I expect, not find the sources to your liking for one reason or another or if clarifications are needed; it was already challenging for me to find time to check some of them and !vote).[reply]
It's not a matter of whether I like a source or not. It's obvious that the sources are clearly not reliable, no even for WP:V purpose. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 14:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In looking at the original article and the SPA creation & editing of this article, as well as other articles that mention the subject, it is likely this is an autobiography. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I am 100% certain that this is not an autobiography. Even if it were, that is not necessarily a valid deletion rationale. UPE might be an issue though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Inadequate sourcing fails to directly details the BLP subject. The subject is verified but in my opinion (based on applied, presented and found reliable sources), doesn't meet GNG, ANYBIO or NACTOR. BusterD (talk) 22:20, 4 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tomlab

Tomlab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Quick check finds no significant coverage on the company that passes WP:ORGIND. A record label is a business/company, therefore it's expected to pass NCORP for it to kept. Graywalls (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 15 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 14:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irakli Abuseridze

Irakli Abuseridze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Shinadamina (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for Nomination: All available citations are profiles. Does not meet WP:NSPORT. Shinadamina (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's clear no WP:BEFORE has been done on this one. Other language Wikipedia's have WP:GNG passing sources. There is lots of coverage of his election or non-election as president of Georgia rugby, plus there's coverage of his extensive career (3 World Cups, over 80 caps for a reasonable rugby nation and European career). WP:NOTCLEANUP in action here also. Just because the article is not sourced, doesn't mean it's a reason for deletion as it looks to be clear that sourcing exists, even in the most simple of searches. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I did search for other sources and when doing so, I did not see significant coverage. There is this article, but it is brief. Do you see anything else? If so, please post the links or add to the article. Shinadamina (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 15 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. Ignoring the back-and-forth accusations of COI/SPA, the arguments on the Delete side are based more on source analysis and guidelines, not to mention being decisively more numerous than the Keep !votes. Owen× ☎ 15:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waqar Zaka

AfDs for this article:
Waqar Zaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of this subject, a VJ-turned-television host and a cryptocurrency enthusiast, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SNG. I found only https://www.dawn.com/news/448557/chit-chat-meet-waqar-zaka this interview and nothing much. Lkomdis (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something to think about if I had a COI and was getting paid by Zaka as you claim, why would I remove all the PROMO stuff about him? Instead, I'm adding STUFF that might not make him happy. Anyone can check the page history to see if I'm the one who added the PROMO or the one who deleted it. And BTW, since you mentioned @Aanuarif, if you had bothered to check their tp, you wouldn't be saying what you're saying. Absolutely baffling. - how in the world does Zaka think he could pay me to scrub his PROMO from his own BLP. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed) Aanuarif (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you stop editing after being caught slipping in WP:PROMO and WP:OR into the BLP? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed) Aanuarif (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, Discussion on COIN about this still open, so don't don't conclude the result of this nomination or COIN by yourself, let the community review the whole case, as you are in a list of ongoing COIN discussion and a potential candidate of COI, I will suggest, please don't make any further edit to Waqar Zaka, as you recently did. Lkomdis (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, Music, Television, Cryptocurrency, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Saqib as the user responsible for 50+% of the article text, do you want to comment on the specific issue of notability? It does seem there's not much there other than interviews which are typically disregarded (or nearly so) in notability discussions. In terms of independent content I'm looking at the Samaa article about a trading contest, and the article about him being arrested for cannabis, but not much else.
    Personally I think it will in most cases be uncivil to make COI/UPI/Sock allegations at talk pages (and none are made here). It seems very appropriate to make them at the COI noticeboard. Similarly, there's an instance of seeking guidance from an administrator about your editing, which seems to be good faith even if it might feel like an attack. The last diff ostensibly has nothing to do with @Lkomdis. If you are suggesting this meets speedy keep because it's brought for improper purposes, that could border on uncivil as well. Oblivy (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject absolutely fits the bill as a Creative professional. How so? Well, he was the force behind some seriously popular Pakistani TV shows like Champions with Waqar Zaka, XPOSED, Living on the Edge (Sabse Himmat Wala Kon?), King of Street Magic, Desi Kudiyan, The Cricket Challenge and Video On Trial - just to name a few. Even though these shows might not have their own WP articles but they have definitely received coverage from various RS. HERALD's states Zaka started his television career in the early 2000s and gained recognition as the host and director of Pakistan’s first adventure/dare game show, Living On The Edge. Other shows he is recognised for, and sometimes ridiculed, include XPOSED, Desi Kuriyan and Video On Trial. And this HERALD's piece states Its host and director was Waqar Zaka who has carved a name for himself in the genre. HERALD was a highly reputable and esteemed Pakistani publication. I'm confident others would concur + He's recently co-produced a film called Babylicious and lately, he has jumped into the cryptocurrency and is getting loads of press. Sure, some of it might be paid to make him look like a crypto genius. On one occasion, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa appointed him as an expert (when he's not) in its advisory committee but it does suggest he's getting attention in this field too. Recently, he was accused of involvement in crypto fraud as well. So if you're not seeing much press coverage on him, you might wanna check out DAWN, The Express Tribune, Daily Times, The News The Nation and so on - all those are legit RS and they've got plenty to say about him - both positive and negative. Additionally, there is abundant coverage of the subject in Urdu language sources but I feel it's not appropriate to consider them here as we're on English WP and thus should prioritize English language sources. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply. It would seem odd if brief career summaries in newspaper articles, like the Herald article, demonstrated he is an important figure for WP:CREATIVE. The rest of the mentions in the Herald article are based on an interview. And press coverage about crypto or legal troubles doesn't go anywhere towards satisfying creative professionals (although it might show WP:GNG if he's assessed under another standard).
    I haven't been through all the search results you pasted in but it seems like quite a bit is either self-promoting (something you acknowledge is a risk here) or based on legal troubles. Could you provide the three sources you think best demonstrate notability? I just don't know enough to vote but I've got an open mind. Oblivy (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wanted to clarify that those Herald stories weren't provided to establish WP:GNG. They were just there to show Zaka was the brains behind those TV shows and the shows themselves got press coverage from RS so as per WP:CREATIVE, he's in the clear. Take Champions for example. It got so popular - even if for all the wrong reasons- that it got banned by Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority. And for Living on the Edge, he says India straight-up copied it for MTV Roadies. According to the Express Tribune (the local partner of The New York Times), this show had a solid eight-season run and was a major cash cow for the channel. According to the same Express Tribune, Zala has a cult following thanks to his TV shows. And then there's his film production Babylicious, which got a bunch of reviews as well. Meanwhile, If you check the links I provided previously, you'll see he's been in the press way more than our average Pakistani actor. Sure, some of it might be paid, but there's plenty of legit coverage too. I could pull out the top three examples if you want, but honestly, we don't even need to argue about WP:GNG. WP:CREATIVE's got our back here. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to trawl through your searches to figure out what you think is going to help this article pass GNG notability. So far I've seen a bunch of "this guy is a legend and we interviewed him" articles but based on that I'm not inclined to vote up or down. Oblivy (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like you're clearly missing my point. Who asked you to review based on WP:GNG? Also, I didn't provide any search results in my above comment. I suggest you read my comment again timestamped 09:46. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think merely being the presenter of a TV show counts as "creating or playing a major role in co-creating" a significant work. Otherwise we'd consider every actor starring in a TV show to be a "co-creator" and we wouldn't need NACTOR. And being one of several producers of a film isn't really sufficient either -- it's made pretty clear in the linked source that the major creative force was the director. I think you will need to establish GNG to have case for notability. JoelleJay (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    JoelleJay, Like I said above, Waqar hosted those TV shows, so I reckon he fits WP:CREATIVE, which states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work.. Anyway, I think I've made my points. I really don't have a strong opinion about this or any other BLP and I'm not looking to be defensive. If the community disagrees with my opinion, I'm cool with that too. Let's keep it moving. There's a ton of work to tackle. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A show host is not the same as a show creator: we do not automatically consider star actors to be "creators" of the works they appear in, that status is reserved for the writers/directors. The "role" in that guideline is not referring to an acting role. JoelleJay (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    JoelleJay, So, like I mentioned earlier, he was the guy behind a bunch of reality TV shows which were very popular, doing everything from producing to directing. Take "Living on the Edge" for example, that youth reality show that was a big deal in Pakistan—he was the executive producer there per this RS. Plus, per the same DAWN piece, he wore many hats at The Musik, directing and producing. He was the director of BOL Champions season 1 per this and also co-produced Babylicious - while this states Waqar Zaka is the pioneer of the reality show called Desi Kuryian So yeah, he ticks off a bunch of the criteria for being NCREATIVE, including being a NDirector and NProducer. While BBC calls him a "social media sensations" in Pakistan. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - meets WP: Notability (person). The subject is a controversial and popular social media personality and politician. Sameeerrr (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)(Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

  • Keep: Subject obviously notable with significant reliable sourcing. HarukaAmaranth 13:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to inadequate independent sources in the article, and nothing new of note offered at this AfD. Subject certainly seems to have been a part of significant cultural pieces but the creation or major role required for WP:CREATIVE hasn't been demonstrated. Non-creative endeavors, like the criminal history and cryptocurrency activities aren't sufficient to pass notability under GNG or other standards. Oblivy (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this is the 3rd AFD on this article and I'd like to see a clearer consensus based on policy and the quality of sources (specific comments are more helpful than generalizations).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source Assessment Analysis
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://jp.reuters.com/article/crypto-currency-pakistan/pakistan-moves-to-bring-cryptocurrency-boom-out-of-the-dark-idUSL4N2MY2QY/ Yes Yes according to WP:RSP, Reuters is a news agency. There is consensus that Reuters is generally reliable, Probably organic source ~ ~ Partial
https://www.bbc.com/urdu/pakistan-56991694 Yes in Urdu language Yes BBC is renowned to be reliable Yes ✔ Yes
https://web.archive.org/web/20190412131604/https://dailytimes.com.pk/375662/waqar-zaka-to-launch-cryptocurrency-to-help-pakistan-pay-off-its-debts/ ? ? probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1104219 ? ? probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://www.dawn.com/news/448557/chit-chat-meet-waqar-zaka ? ? mere interview No ✘ No
https://tribune.com.pk/story/507331/i-am-giving-pakistanis-a-platform-to-vent-their-frustrations-waqar-zaka/ ? ? probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://tribune.com.pk/story/879155/i-am-the-reason-why-some-people-now-rule-the-entertainment-industry-waqar-zaka/ ? ? probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2020/04/10/waqar-zakas-show-champions-remain-suspended-ihc-rules/ ? ? No Not opening, dead link ✘ No
https://propakistani.pk/lens/#google_vignette No advert site No No ✘ No
https://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1125800 ? ? probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20200413074930/https://www.samaa.tv/entertainment/2020/04/lewd-headphone-show-designed-to-help-audience-insists-waqar-zaka/ ~ ? archived, Probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/1030194-heres-what-weve-gathered-from-the-four-corners-of-the-world No No Probably paid promotion ~ ✘ No
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2448056/waqar-zaka-tried-to-sabotage-my-position-as-a-morning-show-host-nida-yasir ? ? Probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://dailytimes.com.pk/1148194/waqar-zaka-claps-back-at-nida-yasirs-allegations/ ? ? Probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://tribune.com.pk/story/529514/waqar-zaka-hopes-to-go-from-cobra-to-constituency/ ? ? Probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://tribune.com.pk/story/837229/waqar-zaka-says-line-pe-ajao/ ? ? Probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://ecp.gov.pk/Documents/Downloads/General%20Election%202013/Detailed%20Gazzette/Notification%20-%20National%20Assembly.pdf No No Non existent pdf No ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20181128123043/https://www.aaj.tv/2013/04/main-banoonga-minister-waqar-zaka-strives-to-contest-elections/ No Not opening.. Dead link No Not opening.. Dead link ? ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20190419213558/https://www.samaa.tv/lifeandstyle/2019/04/we-may-never-see-waqar-zaka-on-tv-again/ ? ? archived ? ? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20190530064649/http://dunyanews.tv/en/Entertainment/493945-Waqar-Zaka-seeks-apology-nation-destroying-young-minds/ No No archived site ~ ✘ No
https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/396309-arrese No No Probably paid press ~ ✘ No
https://dunyanews.tv/en/Entertainment/467143-Waqar-Zaka-arrested-over-possessing-sheesha-denies-consuming-alcohol ? No Link not opening ~ ✘ No
https://www.samaa.tv/20873698-solo-champion-waqar-zaka-wins-solo-trader-round-of-bitcoin-world-cup ? ? ~ Probably paid promotion ? Unknown
https://www.samaa.tv/20873569-bitcoin-world-cup-waqar-zaka-eyes-victory-ranks-3-among-2-500-traders ? ? Probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://www.brecorder.com/ ? No Probably paid promotion ~ ✘ No
https://www.dawn.com/news/1727704 ? ? Probably Paid press ~ ? Unknown
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1027586-fia-s-final-charge-sheet-accuses-waqar-zaka-of-luring-public-into-illegal-cryptocurrency-trade No No Probably paid press ~ ✘ No
https://www.dawn.com/news/1731030 ? ? Probably paid press ~ ? Unknown
https://www.dawn.com/news/1735220 ? ? Probably paid press ~ ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Comment of the Source analysis': I took out time to carry out source assement for all the 29 sources used. From the above, I found that only two WP:RS (Reuters and BBC Urdu) featured the subject partially. The rest of the sources used were mostly unknown and unreliable. They don't qualify as WP:RS. They all contain Paid press which either promote the subject overly or discredit the subject. I therefore conclude that WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are not met by any means. Cheers everyone! Maltuguom (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maltuguom, I've to disagree with your assessment because you've labeled even those news stories that were critical of Waqar Zaka as "paid.". I'm just curious about why SPAs (like you and Lkomdis (talk · contribs) are showing a lot of interest in this AfD and who seem to only want this BLP deleted. I hope the closing admin will take into account that this isn't solely about WP:GNG but also about WP:NCREATIVE criteria and also probably think about taking SPA comments into account, especially since you haven't been in an AfD since 2020. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Saqib,My dear, what I did is an unbiased source assessment in line with Wikipedia policy. I am not supporting any side. The source assessment is very clear and unbiased. Take a look at it critically and at my comment. It's left for the admin to decide. I didn't vote "delete" nor "Keep". It's just a clear unbiased assesment based on wikipedia policy of WP:GNG. Most of the sources fail WP:RS. This is very clear! Likely paid promotions both for and against the subject. Why can't we see those articles on reliable WP:RS??.
Mind you! I have participated in AFD n few occassions in the past. I stopped because of the un-encouraging attitidue of editors like you. Why do you add me to an SPI simply because I did what is right and unbiased? I am not in any way linked to that SPI. My account is not a sleeper. I edit when I am free. I came on this to access the sources in line with the wikipedia policy.
Why are you bent on attacking every single vote or comment? It's uncalled for my dear. Let's have a rethink. Allow the admin to take a decision in line with wikipedia policy and guidelines. Cheers.Maltuguom (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maltuguom, You got it wrong in your assessment. Those DAWN news stories aren't unreliable or paid for. In fact, they're critical of the subject. And BBC Urdu didn't just partially feature the subject; they gave it significant coverage, contrary to what you claimed. Anyway, like I said, the BLP should be evaluated based on WP:NCREATIVE because the subject has played major roles in numerous TV shows and a film. And yeah, I filed an SPI because I think there might be some puppetry going on here. It is indeed fishy that an account that hasn't been active in AfD since 2020 suddenly pops up out of nowhere to throw in their 2cents on this AfD, especially when this AfD was originally initiated by a blocked sleeper account. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, the source analysis is clear on BBC and Reuters. Those are the only two WP:RS. BBC featured the subject significantly. Check the table well. The subject and his cronies used DOWN and other unreliable sources to churn out paid promotions. His enemies also used same to launch attacks on him. I saw all of that by reading through each of the sources. A few of the sources are dead links. Why can't both parties used BBC, Deadline, and other WP:RS. TAside from the BBC, there are no other organic sources cited. Also nothing stops me from participating in several AFD's all through this period just to cover up as most guys do. I won't that. It's not needed. I simply being honest and unbiased. Cheers.Maltuguom (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're labelling all Pakistani sources, even the big ones like DAWN and Express Tribune, as unreliable. It's kinda funny, because those are like, the most respected ones in Pakistan. Do you have any proof they're paid? And even if they are, like, who cares? As long as our BLP isn't turning into a PROMO, we're good to go. And even if some links are dead, we can always hit up the Wayback Machine to bring them back to life. And lastly, we're not here to judge based on GNG, but NCREATIVE, and this dude totally fits the bill. Whether the coverage is paid or not doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with @JoelleJay that a showing that the person was the creator or played a major role in the creation of significant works is needed. That needs to be shown with reliable sources. @Saqib can you point to sources where those two elements - significance of the work, and major role in creation -- are asserted by an independent source? I asked before but you demurred.
GNG is indicated because of WP:BASIC, unless you only want to rely on NCREATIVE (in which case, see my previous paragraph).
With respect to your comments to @Maltuguom, if sources are paid-for they aren't independent and don't count towards WP:BASIC. I see no reason we would accept non-independent sources for WP:NCREATIVE especially considering that WP:RS requires independence (Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy). While I disagree with much of the above source analysis, simply hand-waving away lack of independence doesn't mean "we're good to go." As an experienced editor currently participating in a lot of deletion discussions, I assume you know this, so I'm not sure what's motivating the above comment. Oblivy (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TV shows/films Roles Reference
Living on the Edge
Pakistan's most popular TV reality show		 Director [1][1][2][3]
XPOSED Creator and host [4][5]
King of Street Magic Creator and host [5]
Desi Kudiyan Creator and host [4][5]
The Cricket Challenge Creator and host [5]
BOL Champions season 1 Executive producer [6]
Babylicious Executive producer [5][6]
The Musik Director and producer [1][7]

So, I've put together a table listing some of the TV shows directed, produced, created, and hosted by the subject. These are just a few examples, not an exhaustive list and I've made sure to cite independent, RS to back up the information. Now, some of these shows have WP articles already, indicating their noteworthiness, while others, like Living on the Edge don't yet have articles. However, just because they don't have articles doesn't mean they aren't significant works. For instance, "Living on the Edge" was Pakistan's most popular reality show per DAWN as well the Express Tribune, and substantial financial success, as reported by The Nation.

Love him or hate him, Waqar clearly meets the NDIRECTOR and/or NPRODUCER. Serena Menon of the Hindustan Times even refers to him as a Pakistani pop sensation, and highlighting Waqar's hosting skills being compared to those of India's Raghu Ram so, if Raghu Ram qualifies for a WP BLP, why not Waqar? And for what it's worth, Zaka is also recognized as a "social media sensations in Pakistan" by BBC. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c "Chit chat Meet Waqar Zaka". DAWN.COM. 7 March 2009. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
  2. ^ "Qandeel Baloch: Unmasking Patriarchy in Death". The Wire. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
  3. ^ "What being 'bold' means for women". Herald Magazine. 9 November 2017. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
  4. ^ a b "The Wire: The Wire News India, Latest News,News from India, Politics, External Affairs, Science, Economics, Gender and Culture". thewire.in. 13 January 2018. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
  5. ^ a b c d e "Waqar Zaka bore brunt of being critic of PTI policies". www.24newshd.tv. 26 June 2023. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
  6. ^ a b Shan, Muhammad Ali (29 June 2023). "Waqar Zaka Steps Into Film Production: "Babylicious" Reviving Pure Romance In Pakistani Films". BOL News. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
  7. ^ Salman, Peerzada (29 June 2023). "Premiere for Babylicious held". DAWN.COM. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
  • Delete He was the host of some non notable shows in the past. Shows are lacking notability not because they dont have wikipidea page but because there is insufficient coverage on google. The available coverage about him is also limited, often focusing on crypto currency activites. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like you're thinking this vote is payback just because I nominated some pages for deletion that were made by UPEs. Because seriously, how can you just brush off those reliable sources that clearly say he was the creator, director or producer of those shows I mentioned in the table and that there's not enough coverage about Zaka's shows. Seriously? Every single one of his shows is all over legit sources. Like, come on! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this statement from The Wire says it all "Zaka started his television career in the early 2000s and gained recognition as the host and director of Pakistan’s first adventure/dare game show, Living On The Edge. Other shows he is recognised for, and sometimes ridiculed, include XPOSED, Desi Kuriyan and Video On Trial."
I'll be honest, I don't have any sense of how important Living on the Edge is. The rest of it seems clearly to fail on "significant". Note that #1 is an interview which should get low or no weight.
@Saqib considering WP:AGF do you perhaps want to strike your comment about payback? Oblivy (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not backing down from what I said. It's super obvious if one check out Libraa2019 involvement in AfDs and why they voted to delete here. It's like a total retaliation vote.This editor is all over creating and editing bios of not-so-famous actors, but they voted to delete this BLP just because I said keep. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite numerous warnings, you are contineously harrasing me by calling me UPE/sock on multiple platforms without any single evidence, i will report you to admin for this. Retaliation is what you are doing and i am unable to understand what is your motive behind insulting me everytime. Being a Pakistani editor with interest in Entertainment, i have all the rights to participate in Pakistani related article's AFD and share my opinion. As far as my creations are concerned, they have already kept in AfD because community is thinking they are notable [21]. You are not an admin to decide whether the BLP is notable or not. All you can do is respect others opinion which is not that much hard, dont you think? Libraa2019 (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Libraa2019, Could you please share here diffs if I recently accused you of being a UPE or even a sock? This SPI was filed by someone else, not me. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You endorsed that SPI by connecting me with another user without any solid evidence [22], even wrote on Wikimedia Commons "the user is socking on English WP" [23], you accused me of socking on commons without any evidence. You initiated AFD's by calling me UPE [24] [25], all of my creations are nominated by you with similar statements & i am unable to understand your behaviour as many editors have told you that my picking of sources is correct and they recognized my efforts [26], [27], [28], [29] [30] but you objected all of them and you want yourself to be proven correct everytime. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, close to the borderline of WP:GNG, fails WP:NCREATIVE per the sources available and before search results. I agree with the source analysis to a high extent but I have a little bit of doubt as to how all the national media platforms listed are not reliable. What I found was that those specific articles from some of the sources are unreliable because some appear as PR or paid for articles. The BBC and Reuters articles are reliable but not enough to establish clear cut notability. The publisher of this [31] may be reliable but the specific article cited here is unreliable because it is an interview and the headline itself says it all “Chit Chat Meet Waqar Zaka”. This [32] is a mere passing mention of the subject. This [33] and this [34] appear organic but I suspect a PR material pretending to be an organic press article. These two sources are published in two different newspapers but their completely same from byline to headline and the body of the article. My suspicion is particularly heighted for the fact that most news outlets named The Wire are always news agencies distributing PR materials. The date of publication of the article in Herald shows Updated 10 November 2018 while at the bottom it say the article was first published in June 2017 Issue. Then it was published in The Wire on 13 January 2018. This may be a PR campaign. This [35] seems to be a paid press announcing the release of the film, it was an objective review of the film it would have been clear where this source stands. This [36] is a clear sponsored post instructing people interested in his show to download an app of the sponsors of the program. These [37] [38] sources only gave passing mentions are simply in the article populate it. Several links seem dead and can’t be accessed for an assessment. For the trial, it does not seem to be a serious trial because the before search did not turn up strong media coverage expect of a person possibly being tried by the state. Using a few sources about the trial may mean that subjects who are charged for all kind of offences and received two or media coverage may want to use that for their qualification for a Wikipedia page. Piscili (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Piscili, I repeat this shouldn't be judged on GNG but on the NDIRECTOR / NPRODUCER. And by the way, I'm still wondering why there's a bunch of SPAs throwing in their delete votes on this AfD. You've only been in three AfDs since you joined WP. What drew you to this one? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Did you make 100 AFD votes at once when you started voting (commenting) in AFD? I have only three or four AFD comments but slowly it will build up to a great number. And I take my time to analyse sources I do not want to be commenting Delete per nom.. Why attacking me for my comment? In the past couple of weeks I was active in Recent Changes Patrol and now I am expanding to other parts of this collaborative work. But even IP address can comment in AFD why can't I comment too? Why is AFD so toxic? Piscili (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Piscili, I'm not the only one with suspicions about you. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I have made my comments and only closing admins will decide the merit of my comment. I should be able to freely comment in any AFD I chose to but what you are doing now is intimidation for whatever reason best known to you. I am here to help uphold the editorial guidelines not to please any one. If you disagree with my critical analysis of sources so be it. Only admins are the judges here if they decide otherwise in this AFD I am fine with it. That will be a learning curve for me. Piscili (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The most recent source assessment does a good job of highlighting the PROMO issues I have with the sources. Even if we consider his being director of a couple shows as sufficient for NCREATIVE--which I don't--that is still only a presumption of notability, while per N (WHYN) establishing notability requires multiple pieces of SIGCOV in IRS even for subjects that pass SNGs. JoelleJay (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • JoelleJay, I disagree with @Maltuguom's source assessment. They labeled every single source except, BBC and Reuters, as unreliable and paid, even though most of the coverage was critical of the subject, like in these examples: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this etc. From what I understand, subjects are considered notable if they are directors, producers, or even if they have significant roles (incliding creators) in TV shows. This guy meets all those criteria. I'm curious why we have BLPs on less famous Pakistani actors but not for someone who is a popular, albeit controversial, TV figure in Pakistan. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So every director and producer is notable just because they produce or direct just a few movies? It is deeper than you think. There must be significant coverage to meet those notability criterion. Ludamane (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ludamane, Why not? This section states People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Such as The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per source analysis to which I have nothing much to add. This is a non notable subject and should wait until such a time when notability meets at least WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Articled contains so much unreliable sources. Ludamane (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's another sleeper account joining the AFDs for the first time, i guess! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have taken ownership of this AFD otherwise why throwing accusation at every editor that comment in this AFD? I have read countless AFD discussions with lengthy threads more than this particular one but never have I seen single editor being uncivil in their discussion as you do here. This is a non-notable subject and majority opinion show that this subject does not meet any notability criterion. Ludamane (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not implying that everyone here is a sleeper account, but it's worrisome that some including you who've never engaged in AfDs before are suddenly joining in, especially when this AfD itself was initiated by a sleeper account. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not check who initiated this AFD and my position here is based on the unreliable sources in this article. Subject is not notable and there is no need wasting so much time and energy on this. Ludamane (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't seem logical to label respected Pakistani publications like DAWN and The Express Tribune as unreliable sources. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article from the DAWN is a very short interview and that's mostly categorised under primary sources more so that that interview was very trivial and did not discuss any serious issue of much public interest Ludamane (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Saqib, please stop. You opened a SPI about 2 users who !voted Delete, not sure it was appropriate nor wether it will be endorsed but that should be enough. Assume good faith and consider NOT commenting on every !vote that does not go your way. I generally don't comment on behaviour issues unless I am personally involved, but your comments do not seem to be made in a constructive spirit (and that is an understatement, believe me). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We've got over 6 editors voting for deletion here, but I've only filed SPI on 3 of them, not all. My worries are totally legit. These 3 sleeper accounts, never even glanced at Pakistani pages before, NOR ever participated in AfDs before. Anyway, I'm throwing in the towel on this one. Don't really care if this BLP sticks around or not, but I'm still scratching my head over why someone's going all out to axe this BLP. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but that is simply not true. Piscili and Ludamane are not "sleeper" accounts and they had participated in AfDs before. I have no time to comment anymore on the issue, sorry. Still, I'm inviting you again to change your approach. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mushy Yank, Sure, I'm stepping back from this now. But before I bow out, I've to say that this is seriously risky. Anyone could get a BLP wiped out like this, even if the subject clearly meet WP:N. I dropped a note on your tp explaining that this subject isn't just some ROTM figure in Pakistan. He's controversial, sure, but undeniably popular and gets loads of press coverage in RS. And here's an interesting tidbit: even Jimmy Wales himself once edited this BLP. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mushy Yank, you need to see this [39] [40] its the hatred i received just for sharing my opinion. Libraa2019 (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aamna Malick

Aamna Malick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This actress does not fulfill the criteria WP:ACTOR as I couldn't find any major roles in TV shows NOR does their coverage satisfy the basic WP:GNG. A significant portion of the sources referenced lack reliability . —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[44], [45] Otbest (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:58, 23 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! 05:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo International Jewish Film Festival

Buffalo International Jewish Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It exists, but doesn't have the significance or coverage to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't arguing that it should be kept, but there are sources out there. It should just be added. But Google searching, you can find more from both of these publications for some reason not on their website. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 15 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! 05:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiba Ali Khan

Hiba Ali Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another BLP on a non-notable actress created by BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) who has a dubious editing history. The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Skynxnex (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Under the general notability guideline, it's not the perceived prestige, in the eyes of us as editors, of a film, show, or or performer (which is subjective; e. g., one of the linked sources calls Khan a prolific actor) that confers notability; rather, notability comes from coverage in secondary sources. The article already cites sources that focus on Khan (e. g. [48], [49], [50]). I noticed other hits when I keyword-searched with Google, and this is just considering English language sources without getting into the probability of other language sources. By way of aside, the text of this AfD's OP is nearly identical to another AfD Saqib nominated on the same day. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we evaluating based on policy WP:GNG / WP:NACTOR or merely on some press coverage and appearances in dramas? No one is questioning her status as an actor, as she has indeed appeared in dramas. However, the crucial question is whether she has had significant roles. I don't see that. Now one might question why she receives press coverage if she doesn't have significant roles. It's important to note that national news channels such as ARY, GEO and others, are also associated with the production and promotion of these dramas, so they often invite the cast onto their TV shows, resulting in news articles in their news websites based on these TV appearances. While ARY news story may label her a prolific actor, this alone doesn't necessarily meet the criteria for WP:NACTOR. Additionally, we should be cautious about relying on the websites of Pakistani national news channels, as they fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and regularly publish sensational and tabloid-like content for increased traffic. As far I can see coverage in Urdu language, while available, also tends to lean towards gossip and sensationalism. And the identical text across my AfD nominations shouldn't be an issue when the problem with all of these BLPs is the same. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You brought up WP:NEWSORGINDIA; however, that subsection of WP:RSP specifically refers to certain kinds of articles in certain publications from India like ABP Live's Brand Wire, Outlook's Business Spotlight, etc. The consensus isn't about all entertainment media in southern/southeast Asia. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please refer to this discussion - commencing from the comment by ActivelyDisinterested at 16:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC). —Saqib (talk | contribs) 00:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ActivelyDisinterested's advice to be cautious about ProPakistan.pk is duly noted, but their comment doesn't seem to be about all news publications in Pakistan, and Sheriff contested the characterizations of even just ProPakistan.pk. Three editors who seem to have brought three different opinions doesn't seem like a ringing consensus. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hydrangeans, OK - I do not want to delve into the details of what constitutes a RS or not, as this isn't the appropriate forum for that discussion. Let's keep it simple. so here are my final thoughts. As we can see, the actor clearly does not meet the criteria of WP:GNG because it requires sig/in-depth coverage. And if look at this from the perspective of NACTOR, the actor only had a lead role in one TV show, Dil, Diya, Dehleez (TV series) and in the rest of the shows, she only played MINOR roles. I deleted some because they were either based on WP:OR or cited using clearly unreliable sources that can't even be used for WP:V purposes. So, as I mentioned, the actor had a lead role in " Dil, Diya, Dehleez (TV series) but when one does a Google search, there is no sig/ in-depth coverage about this show, indicating that it is not a significant work. Yes, it has a WP article, but so do hundreds of other TV shows created by UPEs. However, this show clearly does not meet the threshold of significance, which means the subject fails to meet NACTOR, which states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant. If you still like, I am happy to discuss further. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "specifically refers to certain kinds of articles in certain publications from India like ABP Live's Brand Wire, Outlook's Business Spotlight." The rule can be applied to the Indian subcontinent and all media therein. Note that a lot of media in one country is served in other countries in that are. A border does not negate the fact that the region has a history of paid media such as these. The "certain kinds of articles" apply and the "certain publications" are only examples. Creating a listing of ALL publications that do so would be exhaustive. These are just examples and we need to use common sense when applying the rule. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hiba's is a notable actress and she is recently working in drama Shiddat and Rah-e-Junoon.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    As the creator of this BLP, you've to provide references to support your claims. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet and little policy-based opinions stated in this discussion. Yes, there have been run-ins between editors in this subject area but can this discussion focus on the merits of this standalone article and not on the perceived motivations of any or all discussion participants? Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Source are interviews, based on what she says or brief mentions. The other issue is when I look at the articles about the shows listed in the filmography to see if any sources have info about Khan, I am finding those articles are also poorly sourced. For example, the sources used for Kitni Girhain Baaki Hain are not about the show and are only brief mentions. That's just one but I looked at a few. If anyone comes up with a couple RS that has in-depth coverage about Khan, please ping me. S0091 (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per my check, I searched for sources with in-depth coverage of the subject but found only interviews with some passing mentions, which can't establish notability at all as per WP:GNG. She also fails WP:NACTOR as she did not have a significant role in a notable film. GrabUp - Talk 16:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For someone with so many listed roles, I initially assumed there would be a ton of references available. However, there are not. And, the ones that do exist simply verify roles but do not add up to significant coverage. They are interviews, NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise unreliable. Note that WP:NACTOR only presumes notability for certain roles, but does not guarantee notability. It is still based on sourcing. Here are the references currently on the page:
The News International, an interview which is not considered independent.
ARY News, Falls under NEWSORGINDIA but it does include a video of an interview she gave. Unfortunately, it is still an interview and the information is not considered indepdent.
Dawn, mentions her as part of the cast. Verifies role but verifiability is not notability.
ARY News, same as the ARY News assessment above.
City 42, announcement of her marriage. It does say she changed her name but searching that name found no references suitable to show notability.
Dawn, another one that mentions her name to verify a role, but does not talk about her outside of that. Brief mention only.
Daily Times, Falls under NEWSORGINDIA, but even if disputed, it still only verifies a role. Her name is mentioned one time. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acsess Business Academy

Acsess Business Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, possibly defunct business school. The "Official Site" link at the bottom of the article points to an archived copy because the original URL is dead. A Google search for "Acsess Business Academy" returns only 23 results: this article, mirrors of this article, related Wikipedia pages (Category:Business schools in South Africa, Category:Unknown-importance WikiProject Business articles), and a handful of résumés and homework assignments that refer to the school. A Google search for "Access Business Academy" is similarly unfruitful, with only 14 results. —Bkell (talk) 22:37, 15 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. ✗plicit 23:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tribalism and regionalism in Zimbabwe

Tribalism and regionalism in Zimbabwe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This topic is pretty certainly notable but I think this calls for WP:TNT. On such a sensitive and contentious topic we do not serve our readers properly by having a mishmash of unsourced statements, huge gaps and random factoids. Most of the sources cited do not deal with the stated topic as a whole but with individual incidents that the creator is weaving together to tell a larger but often apparently OR story. Mccapra (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 15 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 South Park characters#Clyde Donovan. Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Donovan

Clyde Donovan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable character. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCHAR. List of South Park characters already exists. Previous merge requests on the talk page rely on WP:ITSIMPORTANT. -1ctinus📝🗨 22:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 15 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. I am interpreting the course of discussion as having 2 editors making reasoned arguments for keep, 1 making a reasoned argument for deletion, and nominator making reasoned pivots between mostly delete-oriented arguments and a "keep for now" view (which itself seems almost like a !vote for no consensus outright). I assigned no weight to the final keep !vote with an incomprehensible rationale. signed, Rosguill talk 14:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Anti-Imperialist Platform

World Anti-Imperialist Platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. Despite the impression given by having 21 references, there is zero independent coverage of the orgaanization much less GNG coverage. They are ostensibly a communist organization but their main thing seems to be that Russia's war in Ukraine is just and a struggle against imperialism. Of the 21 references, 7 are flatly themselves (either their website or a copy of a speech they gave) 1 is a YouTube video of an interview of one of their people which is basically another speech, 3 don't even mention them, 3 give a very brief mention of them and 7 are criticisms of them by communist organizations. I also could not find any real sources on them, and I looked harder than usual. The article is basically sourced to themselves but then does mention the criticisms. So no real sources on them means no wp:notability from which to build an article. If there were actual sources, this might be an article worth having....for example they might reveal that this is some type of a Russia-created ploy which is trying to dupe communist organizations. But right now there is zero independent coverage of them in sources. Interestingly the organization's website has no "about us" or "our history" section, no contact info (address, phone number etc.) except a gmail email address. It's a stretch to even call it "sourced to themselves" because the "about self" info in the article (eg when it was founded) is not even on their website. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the new references. Nothing new regarding the main issue, still no independent coverage of the organization much less GNG coverage. I actually WANT that coverage to be found and thus for the article to exist. There are lots of critiques of them and of their positions by communist organizations. Maybe that's enough to keep via WP:IAR North8000 (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A lack of independent, non-partisan coverage of the subject of this article. Although there is certainly controversy among communists over the ideological stances of this organization, this is of little relevance to readers who are not communists or otherwise familiar with the ideological positions of this group. Further, this organization is more-or-less an ideological extension of the CPGB-ML, so any criticism that does or will exist from third-parties would likely be more focused on that particular party or any other major member parties. SociusMono1976 (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.
The presence of criticisms by other communist organizations suggests a level of engagement within a specific community or ideological sphere that could warrant further examination. These criticisms from within the community provide context and demonstrate that the organization has sparked discussion and controversy, which is a form of coverage and recognition. While some editors question the sources of the critiques, this is not uncommon in the coverage of niche or emerging political movements, especially those with a specific ideological leaning. The inclusion of external criticisms — even if from ideologically aligned groups — does serve to broaden the discussion about the platform beyond its self-representation. Additionally, the fact that these external sources bother to critique the organization lends weight to its relevance in its sphere. Wikipedia's notability guidelines do not strictly require that all articles at all times must have extensive media coverage. For niche political organizations, the requirement can be met through significant coverage in specialized publications or through the impact demonstrated in inter-group communications and critiques. Wikipedia's goal is to provide a comprehensive database of knowledge that includes all verifiable perspectives, including those from smaller or less mainstream entities. The existence of an article on a potentially lesser-known but ideologically significant organization like the World Anti-Imperialist Platform contributes to this goal. The community has a strong preference for improving articles rather than deleting them when possible. If the current references are deemed insufficient, the appropriate response would be to tag the article for needing additional citations from independent sources, rather than outright deletion. The inclusion of ruling political parties from countries like Venezuela, Guinea-Bissau, and North Macedonia elevates the organization's political significance. These countries' involvement is not only a testament to the platform's influence but also to its relevance in international politics. This kind of international collaboration among ruling parties inherently suggests a level of notability that deserves recognition and documentation on Wikipedia. The participation of such significant political entities justifies an argument for the preservation and further development of the article. Wikipedia's guidelines on notability do not strictly require exhaustive coverage in mainstream media if the subject can be demonstrated to have significant impact or involvement by notable entities. The involvement of ruling parties should be considered a form of significant coverage. The organization’s connections to countries with notable geopolitical profiles—especially Venezuela, known for its significant international political interactions—underscore the importance of the platform in understanding global geopolitical dynamics. This aspect alone provides a substantial basis for keeping the article, as it serves as a critical piece of the puzzle in understanding international alignments and ideological conflicts. Deleting or undermining the presence of such an article could result in a significant gap in the available information about a notable international coalition that influences political opinions and actions. It is crucial for Wikipedia to represent such entities accurately and comprehensively to fulfill its mission as an encyclopedia that covers the full spectrum of human knowledge. Rather than deletion, this situation presents a clear opportunity for improvement. Encouraging contributors to seek additional independent secondary sources that discuss the platform's activities and influence could enhance the article's quality and reliability. This approach aligns with Wikipedia's principles of verifiability and neutrality while ensuring that significant political entities are appropriately represented. Castroonthemoon (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of two minds on this. Even if it is just a mysterious front organization for Russian operatives (which is my current best guess it is and the Greek Communist party seems to hint at [51] ) then perhaps it would be good to have an article if only to eventually expose it. But to build an article we need sources to build it from and we basically have zero sources about this mysterious organization. We have them talking about themselves, we have communist organizations critiquing their stances and a few short "we attended an event of theirs" sources. The WP:notability requirment basically is "we have sources which cover the subject". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting that you mention that. The primary challenge with the subject material is that it’s a supranational organization composed mainly of communist parties. It’s not a centralized entity but rather a congress of 50 parties and organizations, multiple of which form or take part in the governments of their respective countries. Supranational organizations often do not make headlines, as evidenced by the noticeable lack of notable sources in the list of Political international articles. Among the notable articles covering the platform that I’ve found, I can’t use them as they are from Russia Today or other sources deemed less reliable by Wikipedia. This highlights a broader issue of sourcing when it comes to international and especially non-Western political movements. The absence of coverage in mainstream Western media should not be a default barrier to notability, particularly when the subject has a significant impact on the political or ideological landscape of multiple countries. Another issue with this organization is that it includes only a few English-speaking organizations, which explains why outlets like MSNBC, CNN, etc. have not covered it. However, this does not inherently diminish its notability or significance. The substantial opposition to the World Anti-Imperialist Platform (WAP) from other parties underscores its notability. As you mentioned the Communist Party of Greece, it's also worth noting the emerging split in the international communist context between KKE-aligned anti-Russian parties and pro-Russian WAP parties, a division that should be crucial to document. Castroonthemoon (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again I'm of two minds of this.....actually I sort of want this article to exist. But let me play devil's advocate on critiquing your argument. It is a mysterious organization which has gotten some communist organizations so declare thermselves members or attend their conferences. You speak as if it is some organization consisting of those members, but there is no evidence or coverage of it really being that. There is zero evidence/coverage of it being a real organization governed by those members. Even on their own website, there is nothing indicating that it is an actual organization. No leaders or officers, no mechanism of how it is governed or how the participants play into that governance. So how are we to cover this entity with absolutely zero independent coverage of it as an entity? North8000 (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Maybe if we strip out or reword that areas where they have been used as a source on themselves this would become an edge case keep-able article, waiting for coverage of the organization per se by independent sources. I'll try that. North8000 (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find that that would be one of the best possible solution regarding this article Castroonthemoon (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to try that and we'll see where/how this goes. North8000 (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd be in favor of at least temporarily keeping this article, maybe on an WP:IAR basis regarding GNG notability. I did some editing to more clearly identify self-described material as such. It probably is still distorted in some sense in that it has undue stuff in it. For example, if a few representatives marched in a parade, such gets a few sentences in the article. Even if this organization is just a Russian scam regarding Ukraine, this article at least gathers together the small amount of material and sources available on this arguably or possibly impactful entity. I'd probably put a summary of this AFD discussion at the talk page. North8000 (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I can make the time before Wednesday, I think adding more context behind the dissolution of the Initiative of Communist and Workers' Parties and the ensuing split between the European Communist Action and WAP is important to document, and adds more context and notability to the article. Castroonthemoon (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great, this article better not be deleted before then. Charles Essie (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent actions by the Platform have received coverage by various independent Russian media organizations, which I have added to the article. There also seems to be at least two journal articles that cover / discuss the Platform to some extent, which I would love to access but can't [1][2] Castroonthemoon (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not so much inside topic of this particular international, but for now like that. Nubia86 (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quatuor Habanera

Quatuor Habanera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:GNG / WP:MUSICBIO. Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Dikhtiar

Alina Dikhtiar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSKATE; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of WP:BEFORE and consideration of WP:ATD should be all procedurally kept as WP:SKCRIT#3 given lack of a valid deletion rationale as WP:NSKATE is indicative that sigcov is likely, and is not presumptive/determinative, so someone could meet none of the NSKATE criteria but still meet WP:SPORTCRIT for some reason. And !votes relying only on NSKATE are likewise invalid. That said, it's quite possible that most of these should be delete or redirect results. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 01:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chloé Dépouilly

Chloé Dépouilly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSKATE; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of WP:BEFORE and consideration of WP:ATD should be all procedurally kept as WP:SKCRIT#3 given lack of a valid deletion rationale as WP:NSKATE is indicative that sigcov is likely, and is not presumptive/determinative, so someone could meet none of the NSKATE criteria but still meet WP:SPORTCRIT for some reason. And !votes relying only on NSKATE are likewise invalid. That said, it's quite possible that most of these should be delete or redirect results. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 01:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Dimitrov (figure skater)

Ivan Dimitrov (figure skater) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSKATE; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of WP:BEFORE and consideration of WP:ATD should be all procedurally kept as WP:SKCRIT#3 given lack of a valid deletion rationale as WP:NSKATE is indicative that sigcov is likely, and is not presumptive/determinative, so someone could meet none of the NSKATE criteria but still meet WP:SPORTCRIT for some reason. And !votes relying only on NSKATE are likewise invalid. That said, it's quite possible that most of these should be delete or redirect results. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 01:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 15 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 11:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raphaël Bohren

Raphaël Bohren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSKATE; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 15 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! 05:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roxana Boamfă

Roxana Boamfă (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSKATE; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of WP:BEFORE and consideration of WP:ATD should be all procedurally kept as WP:SKCRIT#3 given lack of a valid deletion rationale as WP:NSKATE is indicative that sigcov is likely, and is not presumptive/determinative, so someone could meet none of the NSKATE criteria but still meet WP:SPORTCRIT for some reason. And !votes relying only on NSKATE are likewise invalid. That said, it's quite possible that most of these should be delete or redirect results. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 01:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 15 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 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids without prejudice against selectively merging some content. There is rough consensus not to keep the article as is, and a redirect is a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 15:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico–United States 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid

Mexico–United States 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating based on User:AFC Vixen's edit summary. The bid has been withdrawn, thus failing WP:GNG any relevant information can be moved to 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids LouisOrr27 (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge both Mexico–United States 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid and South Africa 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid into 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids — ILoveSport2006 reverted my first attempt at merging these articles because they felt the Mexico–United States article was "very good and adds a lot of info that the paragraph on the bid page doesn't say",[1] and that "[the South Africa] bid could've won had they not withdrawn and deserves to stay as an article."[2] The first argument ignores how said info can fit comfortably in the bid article, and the second is an unsubstantiated claim. — AFC Vixen 🦊 19:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep – There are many withdrawn bid articles on Wikipedia, even for previous Women's World Cups. To say this bid article isn't notable is ridiculous because it was an official bid, had its own bid book and gained a lot of media attention from many publications in and outside of the US and Mexico. The Mexico–United States section on the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids page is bare and has a map that is terrible and lacks any detail, which makes it virtually useless since it doesn't even display what city and stadium it is talking about, it's just arrows. When you compare the map to the one on the Mexico–United States bid page, there's no comparison. Just type in Mexico–United States Women's World Cup bid on Google and you will find a plethora of articles talking about it. It couldn't be more notable if you tried. That tiny paragraph and map does not give a bid that could have won justice.
    AFC Vixen you have just criticised my opinion with an opinion. If you disagree with my opinion, that's fine, but the way you have written it is like you're saying my opinion isn't even valid.
    What I hate on Wikipedia is when people essentially delete history and interesting facts. This is deleting history and facts. Do not be trigger happy when deleting articles that people have put effort in. Some article can be terrible but this article is pretty good. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "There are many withdrawn bid articles on Wikipedia" is a textbook WP:WHATABOUT argument, and there are indeed city and stadium names on the interactive map; perhaps we could add a "Click the square to enlarge" or similar phrasing to the caption to make that clearer to readers. Again, there just isn't enough content here to justify a WP:SPINOUT from 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids, and it can easily fit there instead. I don't appreciate these unsubstantiated accusations of "deleting history and facts" either. — AFC Vixen 🦊 20:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While the map is slightly better than I thought, It's still way worst than the one on the Mexico–United States Women's World Cup bid page. Also you took one part of my detailed reply which makes many valid points and think you have proven a point by only talking about one tiny aspect of my long reply. You didn't talk about my Google argument, the bid book argument or even the media attention argument. You talked about the only thing that you thought you could make an argument on. You are trying to invalidate my opinion by saying buzz words like unsubstantiated and put me down which I don't respect. This is a common practice on Wikipedia. Make arguments with absolutely no facts and put up links and write it like you are better than the other person.
    Let's take the Budapest bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics for example, a withdrawn bid that is very notable.
    You didn't say: "The reason why the withdrawn Budapest bid is notable and deserves to be an article but the Mexico–United States bid doesn't is because..." You are just throwing a WP:WHATABOUT argument on me and calling it a day. But that's not an argument. In my opinion, it's really unhelpful.
    I don't appreciate these unsubstantiated accusations of deleting history and facts either Personally, I think they are substantiated to an extent because you did delete info from the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids page under the guise of Cleaning the article up and massively cut down on fluff, but you can do both. You seemingly can't take my opinion without putting me down. I can take your opinion, but what I can't take is people fobbing me off with Wiki links with no proper facts or points behind their argument. You have no moral high ground if you put me down. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that you feel very passionately about this, but can you stop pretending like I made personal attacks on you? I merely refuted your arguments with my own, which yes, they are opinions. That is what a discussion is. — AFC Vixen 🦊 22:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do appreciate that you realise that I'm very passionate about this, because it's 100% true, but I never said you made a personal attack, because you haven't. All I'm saying is that I hate when I make valid arguments and people throw a WP:WHATABOUT on me because that isn't an argument and it's a cheap throwaway comment that is disguised as an argument. Also, I felt like you were putting me down. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm not putting you down, I just genuinely think arguing this article should exist because others like it exist doesn't speak to what makes the page itself merit its existence in its own right, and you're probably better off just leaving those kinds of arguments out next time. — AFC Vixen 🦊 00:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But I did give you evidence. That's my point. My argument wasn't just "well other articles exist like it", I gave numerous points about how the article deserves to stay on its on own merit and all you did was throw a WP:WHATABOUT on me. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Mexico–United States 2031 FIFA Women's World Cup bid. Given that the same bid is just being moved to a later edition, it makes more sense to just keep the same article and modify it as needed. Note that the 2027 bid was withdrawn very very late in the process, so there would have been enough coverage for it to have a separate article at some point. SounderBruce 22:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This idea is something that I have thought about as well. This could work too. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move per SounderBruce. Everything still seems relevant and notable, just pushed back. -2pou (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above per Svartner. GiantSnowman 18:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is all over the map. I don't see a consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Commment Just looking at references in the article, I don't see the sources that justify keeping a separate article. WP:BEFORE shows a lot of articles relaying (generally with a limited amount of re-writing) a press release by the US Soccer Federation on April 29th 2024 announcing that they have withdrawn the bid for 2027 and will bid together for 2031. Similarly, there are a good number of articles relaying the announcement of the bid by US Soccer on Dec 8th 2023 and April 19th 2024. Excluding these however does not reveal many sources. One I did find is by the Washington Post : Why FIFA should look past U.S.-Mexico bid to host 2026 women's World Cup, but I would be interested in what WP:THREE sources clearly establish notability. Shazback (talk) (belated signature - following reminder by Liz below)
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.starsandstripesfc.com/2017/11/7/16616540/us-soccer-president-candidates-saying-women-uswnt Yes ? Blog published by SBNation, unknown if Stephanie Yang is a reliable matter expert No Passing mention that Carlos Cordeiro believes the US should host the 2027 world cup ✘ No
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/06/13/2026-world-cup-usa-mexico-canada/ Yes Yes No Passing mention that the US Soccer federation is planning to bid for the 2027 world cup ✘ No
https://www.sportbusiness.com/news/us-soccer-now-considers-bidding-for-2031-womens-world-cup/ ~ Paywalled article - appears independent, but unclear as the content is not available ? Seems to have never been addressed in the reliable sources noticeboard ? Paywalled article - the primary content based on title & lead is a tentative bid for the 2031 world cup ? Unknown
https://justwomenssports.com/ussf-bid-host-2027-2031-womens-world-cup/ Yes ? Not in the reliable sources noticeboards No Very article basically relaying multiple times a short quote from USSF president Cindy parlow Cone ✘ No
https://www.infobae.com/america/deportes/2022/06/21/mexico-buscara-ser-sede-de-la-copa-mundial-de-la-fifa-femenil/ Yes Yes ~ Really stretching to include it as significant, at best there are two paragraphs (137 words total) that are related to a potential 2027 bid ~ Partial
https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2023/04/us-soccer-and-mexican-football-federation-will-launch-joint-bid-to-cohost-2027-fifa-womens-world-cup No US Soccer Federation website ✘ No
https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2023/12/us-soccer-mexican-football-federation-submit-bid-right-to-host-2027-fifa-womens-world-cup No US Soccer Federation website ✘ No
https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/390c06917bd0f7a2/original/New-Heights-WWC27-Bid-Book-USA-Mexico.pdf No Publication by the US & Mexico Soccer Federations, hosted by FIFA ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still not seeing a consensus here so I'm giving this discussion another relist. Could we get a deletion sort for Women or Women's Sports, too? I think we need a few more participants here. Also, the source analysis, which isn't signed, was offerred by User:Shazback.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids. As the source analysis from Shazback shows, this subject does not contain the necessary WP:SIGCOV from independent RS to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Dorothy Durgin. However I have not deleted it as it isn't clear why the content must go entirely. If I've misread, please ping me. Star Mississippi 14:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hart and Shepard

Hart and Shepard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - While Harvard magazine and a single article in the Union Leader may be reliable for use in verifying facts, just those two citations together are insufficient for establishing notability. The two publications would appear to not have the circulation/audience necessary to demonstrate notability beyond a small region or special interest niche. The citations do not show that Hart and Shepard is anything close to a household name. CapnPhantasm (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:53, 30 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. ✗plicit 15:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hüseyin Baş

Hüseyin Baş (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Never elected to any political office that makes one inherently notable, not enough source to establish GNG too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Except for offices within the party proper, the person in question does not seem to have been elected to or held any public regional or national offices in Turkey. Fails NPOL, ANYBIO, and GNG as Vanderwaalforces points out. The article may be relevant for Turkish WP, but it is not (yet) relevant for English WP. --Konanen (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Profitis Ilias Church, Santorini

Profitis Ilias Church, Santorini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a church. The article fails to make clear what makes it notable and its source is an image title from a self-published image in a tourist site. In general, it lacks significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources (see WP:NBUILD). Not to be confused with the Profitis Ilias Monastery in the same island. C messier (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (as article creator) - support deletion on WP:NBUILD grounds, and with some years of hindsight. Looked quickly for some reliable sources, and was not able to find anything in depth relating to this church in particular (not the Profitis Ilias Monastery, nor the Profitis Ilias ridgeline). SamHolt6 (talk) 13:35, 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 keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Memoona Qudoos

Memoona Qudoos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At first glance, the actor appears to be well-known with numerous roles in television serials, films, and what not. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes evident that the subject only had minor roles in the majority of those television serials and films, thus failing to meet NACTOR. Anyone wishing to argue based on GNG must provide THREE, i repeat, THREE of the best coverages in RS -only. ROTM coverage like this, this and even INTERVIEWS like this is not enough to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep because the interviews in rather reliable sources have a presentation that might show her roles are signficant. If not why not DRAFTITY until better sources are found, so as to avoid the risk of constant recreations/deletion and mutual frustration?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mushy Yank, Roznama92News isn't even a RS. It's just one of the countless Urdu language newspapers circulated in Pakistan. And I wouldn't outright label the interview in The News as a paid placement since I lack evidence, but considering the nature of the questions posed by the interviewer, it's a plausible possibility. Anyhow, I'm fine with DRAFITIFICATION, though. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:41, 31 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. czar 21:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bharti-Bharat-Kamdi

Bharti-Bharat-Kamdi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Never elected to any political office that can make them inherently notable, and being a candidate from a political party for the upcoming election does not make them notable either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:13, 15 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 Hull Kingston Rovers players as a viable if not ideal ATD Star Mississippi 01:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Heil

Chris Heil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to List of Hull Kingston Rovers players as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support of a Redirection or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:54, 30 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congestion pricing

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! 23:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Bowl broadcasters

List of World Bowl broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obvious unsourced listcruft of a group of broadcasters not notable as a group. Nominating so User:SpacedFarmer can't -1ctinus📝🗨 19:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on additions made post-nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per failing [WP:LISTN]]. I'm not sure what the relister means by additions? A single source was added since the AfD, and its from IMdB. Similar to the other college bowls, it's WP:LISTCRUFT, with loads of WP:OR that is just trivia. Conyo14 (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Faye Parney

Marilyn Faye Parney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest claim of notability here is that she got nominations/wins from a minor regional music award that doesn't fulfill NMUSIC #8 (that's looking for top-level national awards on the level of the Junos or the Canadian Country Music Awards, not just the Saskatchewan Country Music Awards) -- and otherwise, this is written more like her self-published marketing materials on a primary source than a proper encyclopedia article, making it unsurprising that the only footnote present here is to her own self-published marketing materials on a primary source.
And on a WP:BEFORE search of proper media archives, I'm not finding much to salvage it with -- I found a few hits of "local woman does stuff" in Saskatoon's local media, but nothing that would support a meaningful notability claim under NMUSIC, and mainly I just found concert listings.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to get over GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete She doesn’t seem to have the necessary sources and coverage, but I’m open to keeping the article if those sources can be found. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:35, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Studies Charter High School

International Studies Charter High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unclear how this passes WP:NSCHOOL CDotSkelly (talk) 19:38, 15 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 A-Plus TV#Drama serials. Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhabbat Yun Bhi Hoti Hai

Muhabbat Yun Bhi Hoti Hai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. Received some ROTM "Pakistan Media Awards" —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barfi Laddu

Barfi Laddu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This TV drama fails to meet GNG as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. ROTM coverage like this, and this is not enough to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:17, 15 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! 06:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Plummer (musician)

Brian Plummer (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a musician, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only properly verifiable claim of notability here is that he existed -- it asserts that he had hit singles, but fails to provide any verification of where they were "hits" (spoiler alert, not in RPM). And for "referencing", it just contextlessly bulletpoints a list of mostly primary source websites that aren't support for notability, without footnoting anything in the article body to any of them.
On a WP:BEFORE search, further, I didn't find enough coverage to salvage this -- apart from one concert review in The Globe and Mail on the occasion of him playing the El Mocambo in 1980, I otherwise only get local coverage in Saskatoon, glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that aren't about him in any sense, and tangential hits for other unrelated Brian Plummers (such as Bill Pullman's character in The Equalizer).
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more and better sourcing than he has. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:57, 23 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! 05:18, 30 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. I don't see a consensus here. Liz Read! Talk! 02:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhool (2019 TV series)

Bhool (2019 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - A WP:NTV series, substantial sources, free images available on Google search. Rather than WP:AfD, should have been tagged for "Additional Citations".Sameeerrr (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 22 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! 02:21, 30 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 programs broadcast by ARY Digital#Drama series. Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mere Harjai

Mere Harjai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G7 Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

V. Y. Bezel

V. Y. Bezel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the article is literally just one quote (not one line, but a quote). I was thinking of doing speedy deletion but decided against it as someone might feel as if the article could be expanded upon. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G7 as the original author requested its deletion. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 13:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it needs to be deleted Cowinatree (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is filling no purpose, I believe speedy delete is right decision for this article. UNeditx (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I've already created a draft at Draft:V. Y. Bezel. --Soman (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vladimir Bezel, since that page has now been created and this title is a plausible redirect to it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete since the author requested it and the page for Vladimir Bezel now exists. Uncreative172 (talk) 15:12, 20 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. Consensus is clear. BD2412 T 15:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JSX Flight 284

JSX Flight 284 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor incident, no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, no likelihood of WP:LASTING effects. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, another article only notable among aviation buffs. Borgenland (talk) 19:58, 19 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. ✗plicit 00:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ofentse Boloko

Ofentse Boloko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. It seems like he is now out of the sport and working in fitness. JTtheOG (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonwabo Majola

Sonwabo Majola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. It is likely he goes by a nickname. JTtheOG (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lahore Front

Lahore Front (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is basically a collection of several separate battles fought, for which wiki pages exist. These include the Battle of Burki, Battle of Asal Uttar, Battle of Phillora and Battle of Chawinda. If at all there is a need for consolidation of this data, it has been carried out on the more relevant Indo-Pakistani war of 1965. None of the sources call it the Battle of Lahore. >>> Extorc.talk 18:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy McKinney

Freddy McKinney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a storm chaser who received temporarily media coverage for being first on the scene of a destroyed home where all the occupants were severely injured and he rushed them to the hospital. This is the only notable coverage he has ever received. This article fails notability guidelines, specifically WP:1E, and should be deleted. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 17:58, 15 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× ☎ 19:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Beck (music manager)

Richard Beck (music manager) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to pass notability test. Reads like a resume. No secondary sources. Risedemise (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promo. Additionally most BLPs on Category:Articles with a promotional tone from May 2024 are like this and should be deleted too Justanotherguy54 (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BBX Music

BBX Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article for a non-notable record label that was created by the owner of the record label himself. Not only is this article a clear WP:COI, but is a total WP:GNG failure as well. λ NegativeMP1 17:55, 15 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. Consensus is clear. BD2412 T 15:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IndyCar Series on NBC

IndyCar Series on NBC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent motorsport fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcements, WP:PRIMARY, focusing less on the broadcastings (usually about the series or one of the announcers) and those otherwise unsourced; none of these helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:39, 15 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× ☎ 12:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amber K

Amber K (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a BLP of a non-notable author, references are self-published sources inc Facebook. No particular claim of notability, says she's exec director of some company but that's not immediately verifiable from their home page. She taught some courses at some organisations, that seems to be about it. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Timknit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete: Doesn't pass AUTHOR, I can't find book reviews. I don't see anything other than books for sale on the usual platforms. Nothing for biographical notability as I can't find articles about this individual either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep: The page is in need of expansion and updating, not deletion. Amber K has writing books since the 1980s, the selection listed on the page is incomplete, as a cursory search for "Almber K bibliography" will indicate. Reviews of her books are likewise easily found on reviews sites, such as Goodreads, and her publisher's official sites as well. Ardantane, her "some company", is an independent, registered 501c3 non-profit corporation established in 1996 in the state of New Mexico and is one of the few Nationally recognized Pagan Schools in the United States. She is also a former First Officer (President) of Covenant of the Goddess (COG), an international organization of Wicca and Witchraft covens and practitioners, whih was founded in 1975. Amber K is also the originator of COG's Youth Service Award "The Hart and Crescent", which was originally designed for those in Scouting, may be earned by youth who are not Scouts as well.
When I have time, I will work on improving the article, provided that it is kept.
(POV: As an aside, I find it questionable that a new Wikipedian's earliest activities on the platform are to suggest articles for deletion.) Ashareem (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice the Goodreads reviews but I don't belive user generated content counts towards notability any more than the period of time over which books were written or the particular tax registration of a given organisation. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User-generated content can't be used for notability; that's part of the issue, can't seem to find any critical reviews in sites that aren't blogs or user-generated sites Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 22 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! 22:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An evaluation of newly brought up sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep somewhat reluctantly, I think there's a case similar to the reasoning behind WP:NARTIST and WP:NMUSICIAN. There's precedent for keeping articles on figures who have been influential within a notable subculture, even if they are not known beyond that subculture. It seems to me that on grounds of WP:SUSTAINED, the volume of work published, and reliable sources describing her as something resembling an authority figure on new age Modern paganism in the United States, she probably edges over into notability. The existing article that's written should probably be tagged for FANPOV. BrigadierG (talk) 16:25, 7 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.
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! 17:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stanley Cup playoffs broadcasters (Original Six era)

List of Stanley Cup playoffs broadcasters (Original Six era) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NHL fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of nothing but YouTube posts; not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete listcruft. OP might want to stop using the same message for all of his AfD's since the NHL is obviously not NASCAR. -1ctinus📝🗨 19:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this was an error. I didn't know I was tired after a day from work. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ TheWikiToby (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter D'Agostino

Peter D'Agostino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This entire article is just a resume. The creator of the article only had 3 edits from 15 years ago on this page. I searched for sources, and the results were mostly from Temple University itself where D'Agostino teaches. TheWikiToby (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Film, Visual arts, and Photography. TheWikiToby (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Changing to Keep, further digging revealed reviews in ArtForum and Aperture that meet the bare minimum for WP:NARTIST. I also tagged it with various cleanup templates, because regardless of the AFD outcome it needs a lot of work. nf utvol (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What the what?! Peter D'Agostino is a very well known and highly respected artist. He's in multiple museum collections including top notch institutions like MoMA, the Whitney, Philadelphia Museum, the MET, etc. making him a clear pass of WP:NARTIST. Unless this is a different artist with the same name, it appears that a WP:BEFORE was not conducted prior to nominating. Will return soon after I do more research to !vote to rule out if this is someone with the same name. Netherzone (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My initial searches didn't turn up much, but I did a little more digging and found two things that might contribute to notability. First was was this artist profile on the MoMA page, but does having a video presentation in the MoMA and another in PS1 really count as notable? I didn't immediately see his stuff in any permanent collections, just temporary exhibits. Second mention that I found was this review in ArtForum from 1987 of a showing of one of his video exhibits in the Philadelphia Museum. Honestly this is getting outside of my area of expertise so I'd be willing to shift my vote if someone more knowledgeable than me can tell me if this is truly notable...I'm just not seeing the WP:NARTIST right now though.nf utvol (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - A short BEFORE reveals that this is indeed the same Peter D'Agostino. With a multitude of exhibitions at notable international institutions, his work is in several permanent collections of notable museums, his work has been reviewed in the likes of ARTFORUM, Aperture, the New York Times, etc. and many notable grants/fellowships including three from the National Endowment for the Arts, a Pew Fellowship, 3 Fullbright fellowships, he was a Fellow at the MIT Center for Advanced Visual Studies, and the list goes on. Plus he's a full-professor at Temple U and the director of Climate, Sustainabilty & the Arts there as well. I am not including diffs since this info is easily found via a basic Google search. He meets NARTIST, GNG and NACADEMIC. I suggest that the nominator, TheWikiToby withdraw the nomination. Netherzone (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not arguing, but I would appreciate if you could provide some links to those reviews and fellowships you mentioned. I found the one I mentioned above in Art Forum and another in Aperture, but "take my word for it, he's important" isn't really the best way to handle this. nf utvol (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Netherzone. Thriley (talk) 23:19, 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 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! 00:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Solya

Adam Solya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find any independent, secondary coverage of the subject, does not meet WP:GNG. Coverage appears limited to attribution for choreography credits in ISU competition reports (e.g. [63]), which are not secondary prose coverage or significant, and interviews ([64], [65]) lacking independent coverage of Solya. I tried searching for both the Western-style and Hungarian-style (Solya Adam) renditions of Solya's name online and found nothing relevant beyond the second interview example cited here. signed, Rosguill talk 17:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


The result was keep. Consensus is clear. I would encourage the community to consider ways to expand articles such as these beyond being mere lists, to become somewhat more defensible articles on the concept itself (e.g., History of NFL draft broadcasts) incorporating the lists as sections. There are interesting historical items now basically hidden in the footnotes. BD2412 T 13:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL draft broadcasters

List of NFL draft broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of mainly WP:PRIMARY, YouTube posts, announcements, dead and redirected pages and some heavily focuses on the events itself; none of these doing anything to help this list to assert notability. Also, created by a banned sock. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:19, 15 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! 17:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramjas School, Anand Parbat

Ramjas School, Anand Parbat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Suggest deletion on the grounds there is virtually nothing online about the school other than the 2017 allegations and the 2019 overturned removal of the chair. However, Ramjas School, Pusa Road also has a controversy (over fees) and Ramjas College seems notable. All three are run by Ramjas Foundation. So it might be worth creating a Ramjas Foundation page to link to all three (and any other Ramjas operated establishments). Newhaven lad (talk) 16:58, 15 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! 21:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Welk

Stephan Welk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. While the sources provided all seem to be on the up-and-up, the overwhelming majority of them either are to websites that are now up for sale, return 404 errors, or flat-out can't be connected to. The sources that do properly function are all useless for notability - two are hits in catalogues for a book he wrote and the third is a non-sequitur. A search for sources brings up two Der Spiegel pieces about diplomatic document fraud and nothing else accessible or reliable. I will note that there is a BLP/N thread about this article (which is how I found it) but my putting it up for AfD is due to the sourcing woes and not because of the thread. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Was any effort made to recover the dead links from the Internet Archive or other archival services? The two cited sources for this individual's influence on the global cocoa market, for example, are recoverable: [71][72], although I can't vouch for the reliability of the media outlet. That is a singular outlet, however; Bayern-Depesche's masthead notes that it is owned by "POPULAREN Network GmbH", so while these sources are independent of the article subject, they're likely not distinct sources for counting such things. Meanwhile, there's definitely Der Spiegel coverage, but some of it has involves a then-ongoing trial. I couldn't quickly determine if there was a conviction, or even if it had concluded. Lubal (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just put the Bayern-Depesche archived link into Google Translate and got borderline-word-salad off of it, but it's comprehensible enough for me to grok it. And it's useless for notability (too sparse). The article itself seems a confused mess, hardly touching on Welk and his actions in favour of descriptions of Sao Tome and Principe and a chocolatier associated with him. Google Translate ignores the Popularen source entirely, so I can't assess that (language barrier). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not finding anything beyond the sources cited here. Of course, I'm doing a general search based on the search options in the AFD, so am unlikely to find information in less common sources. Of the cited sources (the few that are still live) there are some name checks ("Mitarbeiter der Vertretung", Moneyhouse). There are a very few articles about his diplomatic service (Metosa, Popularen) but these are brief and not in depth. Lamona (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:42, 4 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.
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. BD2412 T 13:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty Fifth Indian Expedition to Antarctica

AfDs for this article:
Thirty Fifth Indian Expedition to Antarctica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Simply a list of people, with no sources, or literally anything else other than a list of people. An XfD was attempted in the past, with no consensus. Trying again since there have been literally no edits to the page since the XfD was closed. Sadustu Tau (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if relevant, but there were no participants in the last XfD. Sadustu Tau (talk) 15:35, 15 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! 17:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Azealia Banks' controversies

List of Azealia Banks' controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this article (a borderline attack page, which has had some material suppressed) is an unnecessary fork from Banks' main article and goes against the spirit of our biographies of living persons guideline and gives undue weight to very minor internet controversies and brief spats (see also: WP:COATRACK). There may be reliable sources on some of Banks' various feuds, but not every single one of them needs to be recorded per WP:NOTNEWS; especially given how Banks has attacked and criticized most mainstream celebrities at this point. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 14:54, 15 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhamad Sharip Othman

Muhamad Sharip Othman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find out if this person passes WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, not to mention the page contains some pretty shady and unsourced information. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 14:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Berlin (lawyer)

Peter Berlin (lawyer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Sources are either unreliable, not independent, or provide significant coverage. GMH Melbourne (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 FIFA Club World Cup qualifying

2025 FIFA Club World Cup qualifying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no qualification page for the Club World Cup because it isn't a qualification tournament like others. Other competitions qualify you and all those pages are linked to in the main article. This page just repeats a lot of information already available. Chris1834 Talk 13:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I understand that there is repeated information, but other information is not. The ranking system is nowhere to be found, as it is deleted from the main page every time the teams qualified by ranking. What I propose is that if the page is deleted, the tables be placed somewhere, either in the articles of the continental tournaments, or in the Club World Cup article. If you tell people that a team is qualified by ranking and at no time show them that ranking, they will not understand it Largopajero (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will give you an example. In argentine Primera Division the relegation is defined by a table made up of several tournaments, there is no tournament that defines it, but the table is shown somewhere. In this case we can't even put a link to the 4-year confederations' ranking because it is nowhere to be found. It must appear somewhere.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Argentine_Primera_Divisi%C3%B3n#Relegation_based_on_coefficients Largopajero (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per nom. Unnecessary fork, the ways in which the clubs qualifyed could be in the main article. Svartner (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. But the tables are eliminated when the teams qualify. If that didn't happen, I would never have made this page. I have no problem moving them to the main article if they are not deleted, otherwise I feel like the rankings should stay somewhere. Largopajero (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per nom. Also considered an unnecessary fork. I consider that it is more appropriate to list just the teams in contention at the main 2025 FIFA Club World Cup article, which is a table that does not show the teams that are not in contention. Such a table in the main article would not be relevant until probably the fourth year of the four year qualifying process (before which far too many teams are in contention), and such tables existed for all confederations at this article and slowly reduced as teams were no longer in contention, and finally disappeared when all teams either qualified or were eliminated. There is discussion on at the moment about the formatting of this table, and whether the subset listed is WP:CALC or relying too much on WP:OR in the application of WP:CALC. (link here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#FIFA_Club_World_Cup_teams_in_contention). This discussion may be relevant if this article survives the AFD process. To list the entire tables for each confederation as a static, non-reducing table (i.e. showing all teams not just those in contention) may have difficulties with WP:NOTSTATS. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I believe is that somehow you have to show people how the team qualified. If you simply say that it was due to ranking, there is no information because the ranking is not found anywhere. Largopajero (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All qualified clubs via continental championship and the 4-year ranking are more than enough sourced in the main article. The ranking can also be seen in this specified source FIFA Club World Cup 2025™ Confederations ranking - inside.fifa.com. It is no real qualifying competition to meet WP:GNG as a stand-alone article. Miria~01 (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but surely the table will be deleted when the new classification begins. It will not remain for the archive. Furthermore, if being able to see the tables on an external website is enough, there should not be any tables on Wikipedia Largopajero (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you don't want to overload the main article with tables, that's why I created another one separately. I insist that it has information that is not found anywhere on Wikipedia. What I propose is that if you decide to delete the article, find a place to show the tables and how the teams qualified by ranking. Largopajero (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information on rankings is referenced, at the current FIFA reference or at Footy rankings.com. An alternative to tables that reduce and disappear is to restore to the main article the table for each Confederation showing the figures of just the small subset of teams that did qualify by this method. Again, that can be accommodated at the main article, small tables so it doesn't unbalance the whole article, and not as a fork to a separate article. Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree. Again, I feel like the tables should be somewhere, I only made this article because on the main page they were deleted when the qualifications were resolved. I believe that showing the qualifieds and the first team eliminated (to reference the score to be overcome), is enough Largopajero (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per nom. and @Matilda Maniac: No real qualifying competition as it does not meet WP:GNG as a stand-alone article. Still in contention 4-year ranking in the main article, as it is the current practice, is sufficient. Miria~01 (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is not a qualifying tournament for this, so this article is nonsense. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So an article for ranking like these? UEFA coefficient, FIFA Men's World Ranking
    Or the tables where they would go? Largopajero (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No separate article for these tables is needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, I think they should be in the main article, but there are only the teams left in contention. That's why I created this one. Once the teams finish qualifying, the ranking information will be lost Largopajero (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the grounds of WP:SPLIT. The 4-year ranking tables are useful information but they really clutter up the main article. I think having them in this article is a good compromise between keeping in the parent article, and removing from the parent article. BLAIXX 15:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another alternative - for the main article - is to restore the tables but only for those teams that actually qualified by this rankings method, such as the table below. I don't think it would unbalance the article having 6 small tables, and it doesn't need the level of detail from each season with wins/draws/losses/rounds: that information can be found from the reference if required. As there are secondary references available (such as Footy rankings) that alleviates the danger that the information at the current primary reference from FIFA will be simply wiped and unavailable at the start of the next cycle. The extra 6 tables giving more details about the champions (venue of finals and runners-up etc.) are completely unnecessary as they can be found directly at the sections on the knockout stages of each of the relevent articles for the confederation tournaments. Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not far from that idea. Yes, I consider that at least the best team that is not in the qualification zone should be shown, to show the points that were necessary to obtain, to qualify.
    I think that the existence of an external link to see the rankings is not a sufficient argument, because under that criterion, it would not be necessary to put tables of any competition.
    Regarding the details of the matches, I don't see anything wrong with it, it is something that provides information, that better explains how the teams reached that score and that does not take up additional vertical space for the article.
    Then, thinking about the future, when the World Cup is being played and there are group tables and knockout stage brackets, it does make me believe that another article is a good idea, although I understand the arguments that suggest that it is not necessary Largopajero (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Club 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total
Argentina River Plate 22 23 19 13† 77
Argentina Boca Juniors 18 18 35 71
Paraguay Olimpia 20 11 26 57
  • Coment Many arguments for deleting the article justify that it is not a qualifying tournament or that there is information that is repeated from the main articles of the confederation tournaments.
I think that something similar happens in the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification, where five of the six confederations use their continental tournaments as qualifiers.
Even in this article there is more repeated information because the entire knockout stage brackets are in the article.
I think that in a split article it is normal for information to be repeated. It is a good opportunity to define a design for this new form of qualification, which is unprecedented. Largopajero (talk) 20:30, 20 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

88 (Arracan) Battery Royal Artillery

88 (Arracan) Battery Royal Artillery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article contains no references to prove notability and is about a company-sized unit PercyPigUK (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd be interested in hearing more viewpoints as those editors advocating Deletion are relatively new or inexperienced. Is there more support for a Merge or Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joerg Stadler

Joerg Stadler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article subject requests deletion. (VRT Ticket 2024051410010337) Geoff | Who, me? 13:19, 15 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! 23:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azeem Sajjad

Azeem Sajjad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NACTOR and WP:DIRECTOR since he didn't have major roles in TV dramas, and also the TV dramas and film he directed fail GNG themselves. The subject also doesn't meet GNG. Anyone willing to prove me wrong must either provide Three best coverage references for assessment based on GNG, prove that he had major roles in those TV dramas for meeting NACTOR, or show that the TV dramas/film he directed meet GNG themselves. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable artist, has been part of notable projects in Pakistani showbiz industry. Failure of some projects doesn't mean that he's no more notable. If that's the case then why do we have articles for his directions. Muneebll (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you demonstrate that the TV dramas/film he directed meet GNG themselves? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plenty of coverage on Azeem Sajjad's role as film-maker in Pakistani media - "Chaudhry is being directed by Azeem Sajjad, whose name previously hit headlines for his 8689 project that starred Saba Qamar." (Dawn), "Azeem Sajjad's upcoming movie is based on the life of late SP Chaudhry Aslam and we have a poster to see that for ourselves." (Dawn), " "Director, actor, writer of his debut film '8969', Azeem Sajjad, has said the flick being released on Dec 2 across the country" (Dawn), "A four-hour-long cut of Chaudhry was directed by Azeem Sajjad that made even less sense (Sajjad’s last venture was the unforgivable 8969). According to the nightmarish behind-the-scenes story, Sajjad overshot the film without coherence, exceeding the budget by a fair number of crores. ", (Dawn), etc. --Soman (talk) 21:00, 21 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! 22:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Suchý

Martin Suchý (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This Slovak men's footballer last played for Czech club Karviná in 2011 before disappearing from the football world.

Under the keyword "Martin Suchý", search engine results almost come up with other men of that name, including an author from Denník N and another footballer from FK Přibram. Without evidence of him even being an author and playing for FK Přibram, these cases clearly fail WP:V.

Sources that came up in my search regarding the AfD target were trial in Příbram, an interview by Deník, injury update, and another interview by SME that covers his current life. In my opinion, none of them are independent coverage that signal WP:GNG. Corresponding articles in other languages are unsourced stubs (I checked and translated them). Clara A. Djalim (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Page fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 13:57, 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 keep‎. Sourcing has been found to exist. This does not preclude discussion of a merger if this would be better covered somewhere else, but support for deletion isn't clear Star Mississippi 12:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bez-MX

Bez-MX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DePRODed with the rationale that coverage of the game in two reviews meets WP:GNG - I was unable to find any additional reviews on Archive.org, and I think that two reviews is insufficient to show notability. The Computer Gaming World and Softalk reviews are in-depth, but the mention in Softline is very brief and is largely about the developer, and coverage of the game there may be summarized as 'this game is coming out at some point and is based on defense projects by Ronald Reagan'. The article could be redirected to List of Apple II games, but I don't think non-notable entries should be on the list. Pinging involved editors - article creator @BOZ:, @Cunard:, who removed the PROD, and @Cocobb8:, who added the PROD. Waxworker (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I changed my vote to a keep per other's arguments. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which says (in part):

    A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

    • "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
    • "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. ...
    Analysis of the sources and the general notability guideline

    Bez-MX received two reviews: a 499-word review from Computer Gaming World and an 834-word review from Softalk. Each of these sources meet the "significant coverage" requirement of the general notability guideline.

    The general notability guideline says that "multiple sources are generally expected". wikt:multiple defines the word as meaning "more than one". The "multiple sources" requirement is also met.

    There is no requirement to have more than two sources because the two sources combined provide 1,333 words of coverage about Bez-MX. These are from high-quality, highly-circulated gaming publications. Computer Gaming World had a circulation of 300,000, while Softalk had a circulation of 150,000.

    The two reviews Bez-MX received were published four months apart which is sustained coverage. However, there is no requirement for articles about creative works like games, books, films, and television shows to meet Wikipedia:Notability#Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time in having reviews published years later. That is because reviews are not the "Brief bursts of news coverage" discussed in the guideline. Reviews provide critical analysis of the creative work. Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary is applicable.

    Sources
    1. Shaw, Luther (July–August 1982). "Micro-Reviews: Bez-MX". Computer Gaming World. Vol. 2, no. 4. pp. 34–35. Retrieved 2024-05-14 – via Internet Archive.

      This is a 499-word review of Bez-MX. The review notes: "The real strength of BEZ-MX is in the advanced game which requires planning. In addition to the elements in the basic game, players of the advanced game must maintain industrial production in a war situation. Players assign the population of their countries to work on the farm, factory, airfield, or city. You can have the people work in these areas (which will help keep military goods in production) or you can hide your population in shelters (perserving population but ending production)."

    2. Hunter, David (March 1982). "Reviews". Softalk. Vol. 2. p. 103. Retrieved 2024-05-14 – via Internet Archive.

      This is an 834-word review of Bez-MX. This page notes that David Hunter wrote the review. The review notes: "There is scoring in Bez-MX to determine who wins, though a low score does not necessarily indicate a badly played game. It is easy to rack up points bombing cities and farms, but destroying the more crucial things like the runway and factory are what help you win the game."

    3. Article that does not provide significant coverage:
      1. "New Players". Softline. Vol. 1, no. 2. November 1981. p. 2. Retrieved 2024-05-14 – via Internet Archive.

        The article provides four words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The first two to look for are Bez-Mx and Bet-J, both based on current defense projects that President Reagan has given the go-ahead to in real life. Besnard is excited because he feels they're great strategy and action games. You lay down your strategy at the beginning of the game and then modify that strategy during real-time using game paddles. Bez-Mx and Bez-I should he available in December."

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

    Cunard (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the arguments of Cunard regarding the GNG. If consensus finds against retaining the article regardless, then I would suggest a merge to the List of Apple II games would be preferable to deletion per WP:PRESERVE and to provide a starting point should further sources materialize in the future. BOZ (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete - per WP:THREE. As my comments above mention, the sourcing available isn't enough to sustain an article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Apple II games, it's close but not quite enough coverage to meet GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:THREE is an essay that says to provide the three best sources. It does not say that three sources are needed. On the section of the talk page titled "why is three better than two?", the author wrote, "I don't think there's anything magic about three, but it seemed like a good number. My suggestion if people insist on three and not two, is to remind them that this is just an essay and people shouldn't be slaves to it."

    The AfD nominator acknowledges that "the Computer Gaming World and Softalk reviews are in-depth". The sources combined provide 1,333 words of coverage about the subject. Since the Computer Gaming World and Softalk magazines are reputable and had wide circulation, they are good enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline since "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage". Aside from the AfD nominator, editors who have said the game does not meet the notability guideline have not explained why they think this. Do they think the sources are not high quality enough? Do they think the sources are not in-depth enough? Do they think that more than two sources are needed?

    A merge to List of Apple II games would be better than deletion per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. However, a merge would result in the loss of content to comply with the due weight policy.

    Cunard (talk) 05:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Articles with more coverage have been deleted for lack of sourcing. The fact is that keeping articles with this little sourcing is not the consensus of WP:VG and would be considered unusual in the best of times. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This response still does not explain why these two sources are insufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Do you think the two sources are not reputable enough? Do you think the two sources are not in-depth enough? Do you think more than two sources are needed? Or is there another reason I have not listed here? At AfD, articles with two high quality in-depth reliable sources usually are considered notable, so a Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games deviation from the general notability guideline ratified by the broader community would explain why some editors here have a higher bar. There is no subject-specific notability guideline for video games, so the general notability guideline is the one to follow. Cunard (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm well aware THREE is an essay, but that doesn't automatically make it invalid - quite the opposite, I would think this is exactly the sort of scenario that it was created for. As I noted, the sourcing is so brief that the writer(s) can't even muster up coherent article about the subject. I've read the article. All it says is that it was a game that involves shooting and two reviewers thought it was okay. That's...almost nothing of substance. If that's all that can be extrapolated from these sources, then no, I don't believe it to be significant coverage. And even if it was significant coverage, that doesn't automatically save it from valid merge/redirect stances. What I'm saying falls within the points of WP:MERGEREASON as well. Sergecross73 msg me 18:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading the three sources in the article, there is potential for a decent expansion. (I know this wasn't your only argument, but as I do plan to expand the article, I felt the need to comment). Skyshiftertalk 18:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Skyshifter - I'm open to changing my mind if someone proves it, but I kind of figured if it was possible, it would be done by now. Ping me if you work on it before the AFD closes and I'll revisit my stance. Sergecross73 msg me 18:39, 20 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 without prejudice to opening a new AfD or any other sort of discussion (e.g., move or merge) upon further discussion of the issues raised below. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment

6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NORG. No sources found meeting WP:SIRS, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth. Article does not indicate any engagements in which the unit was notable.

  • Source eval table:
Comments Source
Blog post/timeline, fails WP:RS, does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth *https://civilwarintheeast.com/confederate-regiments/north-carolina/6th-north-carolina-infantry-regiment/
Enthusiast website, fails WP:RS *https://www.carolana.com/NC/Civil_War/6th_nc_volunteers_regiment.html
Troop register, fails WP:IS, SIGCOV. Government troop registers do not show notability *https://www.carolana.com/NC/Civil_War/Register_of_North_Carolina_Troops_1861.pdf
Fails WP:IS, WP:RS, Memories written down in 1901 source states, "WRITTEN BY MEMBERS OF THE RESPECTIVE COMMANDS." *https://www.carolana.com/NC/Civil_War/Histories_of_the_Several_Regiments_and_Battalions_from_NC_in_the_Great_War_Volume_I_Walter_Clark_1901.pdf
Troop register, fails WP:IS, SIGCOV. Government troop registers do not show notability Register of North Carolina Troops, 1861, by John Spelman page 13.
Duplicate of above ref Capt. Lawson Harrill on April 9, 1901, page 786-808 in the "History of the Several Regiments and Battalions from North Carolina in the Great War-'65-Volume 1.
Ping me if IS RS with SIGCOV are found.  // Timothy :: talk  17:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You might find more sources if you search the 16th North Carolina, which is apparently what this regiment was reorganized as in June 1861. The 16th doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article, which is interesting given its combat history (Antietam, Gettysburg, Fredericksburg, and others). It might be worth rewriting the article for the 16th North Carolina, noting its origins as the 6th Volunteers. Intothatdarkness 00:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply:This sounds like a good solution. If @PaulusHectorMair: feels this is a good solution and wants to pursue it, I will support drafting as "16th North Carolina Infantry Regiment" or another appropriate title. The author is new, I'm not sure they know this discussion is taking place, PaulusHectorMair if you could reply here with your thoughts, even if it is just to let us know you are aware of the discussion.  // Timothy :: talk  00:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TimothyBlue, Intothatdarkness, and PaulusHectorMair: - Let's hold up a minute on this. There's a conflation going on here - the "6th North Carolina Volunteers" was the unit that became 16th Regiment per this but there's also a separate 6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment. Per this brief NPS listing it had quite a bit of fighting, and the State of North Carolina published an entire book on this 6th Infantry. Hog Farm Talk 01:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply So if I'm following this right:
    • This article (as currently written) is about the unit that was reorganized into the 16th North Carolina Infantry Regiment. Its currently named "6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment" but it was actually the "6th North Carolina Volunteers"
    • There is another unit "6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment" that is unconnected to the current article or the 16th North Carolina Infantry Regiment.
    Let me know if I've got something wrong.  // Timothy :: talk  01:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hog Farm, I thought about pinging you, but didn't want to run into the whole canvassing thing with AfD. The ACW isn't one of my major fields, especially Confederate units, so I just did a basic search. I wondered about the Volunteer/Infantry thing, but I've seen it used interchangeably with other units. I of course defer to your expertise. Intothatdarkness 12:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. I am indeed aware of this discussion and have been checking it every few hours or so. I would be open to pursuing an article on the 16th, as this was my original goal. I should have realized sooner that the two regiments were different, and frankly I am questioning my competence for such a silly mistake. PaulusHectorMair (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Making silly mistakes is part of the job... :)  // Timothy :: talk  01:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now that the unit confusion is sorted, is there sourcing for this unit?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (denomination)

AfDs for this article:
Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (denomination) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Micro-denomination of three churches with no reliable sources to establish notability via significant coverage. All existing sources fail to establish notability:

  1. Link - Primary Source
  2. Link - Appears to be a reliable source with coverage on page 15, but note on page 2 that the author of the coverage on page 15 is/was a senior leader within the subject of the article and thus this source is not independent.
  3. Link. Self-published source of questionable reliability, not updated for a decade.
  4. Link Primary source
  5. Link - Erroneously cited and fails verification. The citation describes as "Doctrines of the Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church"; the actual title of the paper is different.
  6. Link - Fails verification for notability; does not reference subject.
  7. Link - Trivial/passing mention of denomination in longer discussion of one of its member churches
  8. Link - Trivial/passing mention of denomination in longer discussion of one of its member churches
  9. Link - Primary source
  10. Link - Primary source
  11. Link - This page is content copied from a self-published primary source formerly associated with the subject.
  12. Link - Online directory page; equivalent to citing the Yellow Pages. Fails verification for notability.
  13. Link - Primary source

Editors arguing for "Keep" in the 2022 non-consensus AfD discussion depended heavily on 2 and 5; however, as I've shown here, 2 is not an independent source for notability, and 5 fails verification. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. As this is a 2nd nomination, would prefer a more explicit consensus to delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:23, 15 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! 05:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Khan (actor)

Hasan Khan (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another BLP on a non-notable actor created by BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) who has a dubious editing history. The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one Inherently notable. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this BLP, you've to provide references to support claims made about her significant roles. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His notable roles in drama Dil-e-Veran, Amrit Aur Maya, Soteli Mamta, Juda Hue Kuch Iss Tarhan, Soya Mera Naseeb and Hina Ki Khushboo. These sources have mentioned his acting career and education.[3][4][5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeauSuzanne (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ Caligiuri, Vittorio (2024-05-02). "A new ring in the spiral: re-reading Marini's work at the end of the hegemony of US-led imperialismBook Review of Ruy Mauro Marini, The dialectics of dependency . New York, Monthly Review Press, 2022 (1st edition in English)". Middle East Critique: 1–6. doi:10.1080/19436149.2024.2348306. ISSN 1943-6149.
  2. ^ Ford, Derek R.; Svensson, Maria (2024-04-13). "Still-existing utopian pedagogy: Architecture, curriculum, and the revolutionary imaginary". Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies: 1–17. doi:10.1080/10714413.2024.2336816. ISSN 1071-4413.
  3. ^ "Hasan Khan". The News International.
  4. ^ "Hasan Khan — the superstar of tomorrow". The News International.
  5. ^ "Stunning and brilliant – Hasan Khan". The News International.

These paid interviews = primary sources. Do you have any substantial evidence ? --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't paid interviews. These newspapers interviews many other actors and models as well and they write about everything. The News International is owned by Jang News Group which is one of the oldest newspaper in Pakistan. Daily Times was run by Politician Salman Taseer until his death. The News International also Daily Times are both English major newspapers in Pakistan.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
I'm not questioning the credibility of the sources, but rather the interviews themselves. While it's common for actors to be interviewed, these interviews alone may not sufficiently demonstrate that the subject meets the WP:GNG or WP:N. Additionally, these interviews (primary coverage) are not sufficient to verify claims of significant roles in TV dramas/films. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: The creator of this BLP @BeauSuzanne is suspected UPE and a SPI is underway . —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in another AfD also regarding a sock insinuation involving the same users, also on the May 7 log, "unless something is confirmed, best not to mention it." Calling someone a suspected sock without confirmation is inflammatory and biasing. Furthermore, that linked sock investigation shows that checkuser did not establish connection between BeauSuzanne and the other names. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doczilla, Sure - this one is old comment and I have retracted allegations of socking since then. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but you didn't retract it here. It would have been appropriate if you had struck that out yourself. I would suggest doing so if you have any other lingering sock accusations that you have not directly clarified. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 15:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • These sources (primary source) are used in other articels as well.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete: Promo BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, are mainly promo bios, interviews, and name mentions in routine mill news, BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS. Above sources are promo interviews, fail WP:IS, and do not demonstrate notability . BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  19:34, 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! 23:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need further input on the sources presented to make a clear consensus either way - more voices will help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The WP:THREE presented all are by the same publication (The News) and two by the same author (Asif Kha), published within a couple months of each other and all are interviews with one being a straight Q&A. Per WP:GNG Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability so at best they count as a single source. As stated by TimothyBlue, the other sources are brief mentions, press releases, promo, or routine coverage and the CLF award is a non-notable award. S0091 (talk) 15:56, 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! 01:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyn Kapumealani Ng

Jocelyn Kapumealani Ng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. Hitro talk 09:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Brief coverage with only four hits in Gnews, but nothing extensive that would help meet notability. Sourcing in the article isn't useful, 3 and 4 are red per Cite Highlighter, with 5 being marginal. On the whole, we don't have notability for this artist. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Arab Canadians. There is consensus that the information should be preserved, but not as a standalone Star Mississippi 13:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Canadian identity

Arab Canadian identity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Follow-up to the deletion of:

All written by the same user that have also been deleted for the same reasons, this similarly written article has the same problems. WP:SYNTH + WP:REFBOMBED issues where the article just references random articles with the phrase "Arab Canadian" or "Arab-Canadian (identity)" in it. NLeeuw (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sachal Afzal

Sachal Afzal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another BLP on a non-notable actor created by BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) who has a dubious editing history. The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one Inherently notable. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this BLP, you've to provide references to support claims made about her significant roles. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In these sources both are news international mentions his career and education. His significant roles are in dramas Mannat Murad, Sara Sajeeda, Bakhtawar, Adawat and Zulm.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC))[1][2][reply]

References

  1. ^ "More than meets the eye". The News International.
  2. ^ "Sachal Afzal". The News International.

These paid interviews = primary sources. Do you have any substantial evidence ? —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a paid interviews. The News International newspapers has interviewed many other actors and models too and it writes every important news. The News International is owned by Jang News Group which is one of the oldest newspaper in Pakistan. The News International is a major English newspaper in Pakistan.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
I'm not questioning the credibility of the sources, but rather the interviews themselves. While it's common for actors to be interviewed, these interviews alone may not sufficiently demonstrate that the subject meets the WP:GNG or WP:N. Additionally, these interviews (primary coverage) are not sufficient to verify claims of significant roles in TV dramas/films —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who contributed to this page, how can we substantiate if these itws were "staged" or not, and if we can't, shouldn't we assume that the default position is that they aren't ? Also he's one of the leading male models of the country and one of the rising actors as well (secondary roles in the leading productions of the country), he has awards and nominations in both fields, shouldn't that be enough to assert his "credibility" ? Metamentalist (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its essential to apply WP:COMMONSENSE when assessing coverage to asses its credibility. In this instance, the coverage seems to align more with WP:NEWSORGINDIA and exhibits characteristics of WP:CHURNALISM-style reporting.Your statement seems to suggest WP:ILIKEIT. To substantiate your stance, you'd need to provide evidence demonstrates the subject meets WP:N —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The News International" is a credible newspaper of the country, not some "yellow journalism" directed towards rumors about celebrities or something, so I was submitting the proposition that the first assumption should be positive and not negative, and my second point is that even if you do admit the source are refutable the man is still one of the best known male models in the country as well young actors (as substantiated by awards and nominations, also sourced). Metamentalist (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that The News itself isn't reliable, but rather this specific piece which doesn't quite cut it to meet WP:RS and establish subject's WP:N. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that info is confirmed by another source (Express Tribune, also "credible") & also does that impact the fact that the WP:N is met by the fact that he's one of the most awarded male models of the country + an actor in some of the country's most watched dramas produced by the best known media houses ? Metamentalist (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BeauSuzanne and Metamentalist The subject clearly fails to meet the GNG, and neither of you has been able to provide solid evidence thus far. When examining this through the lens of WP:NACTOR, a Google search also hasn't yielded anything substantial to prove that the dramas/films in which he acted are significant works. Therefore, the subject fails to meet the NACTOR - even if he played lead roles in them, BUT I haven't seen verification of that either. It appears he only did MINOR roles, and I can say this with certainty. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Promo BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, are mainly promo bios, interviews, and name mentions in routine mill news, BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS. Above sources are interviews, [78]. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  19:32, 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! 23:18, 7 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! 07:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Award winning model and an actor. Meets WP:GNG.Sameeerrr (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet) S0091 (talk) 14:56, 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 delete‎. Star Mississippi 12:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha–Nizam wars

Maratha–Nizam wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article clearly fails WP:GNG & full of WP:SYNTH mess and WP:OR. Maratha–Nizam wars? More like every war against Marathas (as it is mixed up by Anglo-Maratha wars and French conflicts with Marathas) and there's no source for the timeline of this event (1720-1819), clearly fabricated by the author of the page. Neither I found any source explicitly referring to it as Maratha–Nizam wars nor did I find sources for its fictional timeline of 1720-1819. Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!!
I have noticed that there is a discussion happening about the articles on the Maratha-Nizam wars. I am eager to participate and cast my vote for the article. After thoroughly reviewing the content, I have concluded that it comprehensively covers all the necessary information, supported by reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.I think that all the paragraphs in the article accurately depict the context and are verifiable according to Wikipedia guidelines WP:VERIFY.
Here is one source that mentioned it as maratha nizam wars:
•Britannica:[79]
•Britanicca(for further details):[80]
  • I think britannica is a better and clearly citing source for the article.It's verifiability and reliability can be checked at ->
•[81]

Timeline isn't mentioned in the heading of article but it is mentioned in the infobox.If there are any doubts some some sources are definitely needed for a better understanding about the timeline with the citation.But if article is undergoing deletion because of it's heading than the Britannca is one of the sources that cites it as 'Maratha -Nizam War' not as 'Anglo-Maratha War'.[82]

  • Suggestion:It is recommended that the editors and administrators involved in this matter thoroughly examine all sources and make decisions from a neutral Favourable Renaming the article to 'Maratha-Nizam War' instead of 'Maratha-Nizam Wars' would be appropriate as the Britannica source also refers to it in the singular form, given that the article primarily covers individual battles rather than overarching conflicts.
Thanks!! Kemilliogolgi (talk) 10:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean, but the source you shared doesn't cover the Maratha-Nizam war in its body instead it spun around the Anglo-Maratha wars. If you'll search "Maratha-Nizam war" under Britannica's sort searching then you won't find any article on Maratha Nizam war through filter searching under Britannica again I don't know how you concluded that it covers this topic while we don't find a single article on it. We know that Britannica is WP:RS but as I said it doesn't even cover this topic so kindly provide sources for Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.
Timeline isn't mentioned in the heading of article but it is mentioned in the infobox, that's the issue we don't find this particular timeline in any source. The author too is clearly aware of this therefore they didn't cite any source for this timeline. It's clearly a mix of several hostilities between Nizam, Marathas, Anglos and French and represented as "Maratha Nizam war". Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The nominator clearly lacks an understanding of what WP:GNG entails, and I strongly suspect that this action is against me as the author because I nominated their articles for AFD. Please specify the section on the talk page where the sources were synthesized. Neither the Anglo-Maratha wars nor the French-Maratha conflicts are included; technically, it's feasible to add them since the article's scope covers conflicts between two parties: the Nizam and the Marathas, regardless of whether they were supported by the British East India Company, the French, or any other entities. I am listing the sources that explicitly state "Maratha-Nizam War(s)".
  1. [83]
  2. [84]
  3. [85]
  4. [86]
  5. [87]
  6. [88]
  7. [89]

822 results in JSTOR [90] almost 3,000 results in ProQuest[91]. and we have several other sources that do not explicitly mention "Maratha-Nizam wars" but provide detailed descriptions of the entire conflicts (a lot in the article itself). I will await the nominator to post the synthesized part on the talk page. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not a platform for someone to boast their ego.--Imperial[AFCND] 16:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator clearly lacks an understanding of what, then why don't you show us a single source covering this event as Maratha-Nizam war (1720-1819)?
Neither the Anglo-Maratha wars nor the French-Maratha conflicts are included; technically, it's feasible to add them since the article's scope covers conflicts between two parties be sure. Is it conflicts or wars? It's clearly noticeable from the artificial timeline of this event (1720-1819) that it's heavily synthesized.
the Nizam and the Marathas, regardless of whether they were supported by the British East India Company, the French, or any other entities. I am listing the sources that explicitly state "Maratha-Nizam War Now that is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH you're mixing Anglo Maratha wars and French conflicts with Marathas just to get a fictional timeline so it can be "Nizam victory", Now I'd say it's also WP:POVFORK and please WP:DONTHOAX. Now let us look at the sources provided by you. The first two sources are identical.
  • [92] only gives insights of Maratha-Nizam war of 1751-52 but there's no Maratha nizam war 1720-1819 as currently the timeline decided by the author.
  • The third one [93] only talks about Maratha-Nizam hostilities of 1785-1787 again there's no mention of Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.
  • Fourth source [94] is not accessible so it'd be helpful if you provide a quotation for the Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.
  • Coming to the 5th source [95] again not accessible so provide a quotation for Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819
  • Next [96] only found a topic of "Maratha-Nizam relations" I wonder if this led you to the conclusion of Martha-Nizam war 1720-1819.
  • At last, [97] this also can't be accessed so provide a quotation for Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.
Now coming to filter/sort keyword searching through JSTOR and ProQuest. Anyone can see that, It gives NO result for even the "Maratha-Nizam War" as a whole forget including timeline, all we see is individual results for Maratha and Nizam. So that's how you concluded that it has almost 3800 results (from both JSTOR and ProQuest)?
You have yourself yelled that we have several other sources that do not explicitly mention "Maratha-Nizam wars" but provide detailed descriptions of the entire conflicts hence proved it contains synthesis. And above too the sources provided by you don't give insights of Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.Based Kashmiri (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado Indeed Wikipedia is a collaborative project therefore we have to make sure that an article shouldn't exist in mainspace as long as it doesn't pass general notability, and contains synthesis, original research and POVFORK. And No one is being egoistic here. Why do you think so?Based Kashmiri (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Based Kashmiri, you're just increasing the volume of discussion with no improvement. You still haven't provided the synthesised part in the talk page, failed to prove it's not notable (waiting for others to make thier comments). There is a thing called WP:UCS. The "Maratha–Nizam wars" basically ends with the fall of the Marathas, as their conflicts lasted till then. The article body covers the contributions of the Nizam for the fall of the Marathas. Cheers. Imperial[AFCND] 07:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I literally showed how the sources provided by you (most of them don't even cover "Maratha-Nizam war" but cover some relations and hostilities). We just need a single source for the specific Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819 and I'll pull off the prod with myself. Maratha–Nizam wars" basically ends with the fall of the Marathas, as their conflicts lasted till then. At least provide a source to back your statements, this is WP:OR and no WP:UCS doesn't give you waivers for extending the timeline on your own. We're still waiting for you to provide sources for your defined Maratha-Nizam war (1720-1819).Based Kashmiri (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended: I'd suggest WP:SPLIT for a particular war/conflict/hostility (of course, only ones which are notable). --Jonharojjashi (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:44, 15 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! 23:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interior Design Masters series 4

Interior Design Masters series 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to Interior Design Masters. Fails WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Mostly original research. Dan arndt (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 02:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Interior Design Masters. Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interior Design Masters series 5

Interior Design Masters series 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to Interior Design Masters. Fails WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Mostly original research. Dan arndt (talk) 07:12, 15 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! 05:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dominant CZ

Dominant CZ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NORG criteria. The page was obviously written as self-promotion. After restructuring in 2021 and renaming to DOMINANT Genetika s.r.o., it has only 10-19 employees (according to the Business Register). The page is said to have been translated from cswiki, but it has already been deleted there as well. FromCzech (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. While keep !votes have a narrow majority in a raw vote count, arguments in favor of deletion are much more solidly grounded in existing guidelines. In particular, while keep arguments asserted that notability has been established via coverage in RS, they have not provided examples of sources that cover the entire set of "Americans killed..." as required by WP:LISTN. A late redirect proposal did not gain immediate traction; I decided against relisting to allow for its consideration on the basis that there is no current list of Americans at the suggested target page and thus the redirect seems unlikely to win consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 13:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Americans killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine

List of Americans killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mainly due to lack of notability, WP:NOTNEWS, and the obvious bias issue in having this list. In addition the list contained original research listing the Telegram channel 'TrackANaziMerc' as a source since February. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting topic.... would have never searched for it on my own. There seems to be substantial sourcing for this if it wants to be improved no? Moxy🍁 20:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are the only two sources I could find that treat the topic as a group: [98] (paywalled so can't review) and [99], and this latter source isn't very in depth about it. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been able to read the Washington Post link thanks to a gift I was sent: I don't believe the Washington Post is dealing with solely Americans having been killed in the war, but rather the idea and reasons behind Americans serving overseas in Ukraine - the Washington Post article is more suited for foreign fighters in the Russo-Ukrainian War rather than this list. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, I got a proposal to change the topic to "List of Americans killed in the Russo-Ukrainian War" , which @EkoGraf, the creator of the list, doesn't oppose to it, maybe we could change the topic first before we nominate to delete?
PoisonHK Sapiens dominabitur astris 14:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The title/period isn't the issue with the list. Also speedy keep cannot apply here. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, also article is incomplete and need expantion. If the title is changed to List of Americans killed in the Russo-Ukrainian War we should include American killed during the War in Donbas 2014-2021.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it pass notability and WP:RS with sources as The Guardian, Politico and Yahoo News. Shadow4dark (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But do they deal with the topic as a group like this? Routine news coverage doesn't establish notability of the topic as a list. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Replace "Routine news" with better sources, it pass clearly notability. Shadow4dark (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What? Traumnovelle (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article creator, notability established as mentioned by RS, also agree to article expansion to include those from the Donbas War. EkoGraf (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Regarding lack of notability, NOTNEWS, and bias, I disagree with all three. I think it's pretty notable and informative for Americans and others to known how many died in a war they heavily funded. NOTNEWS I think is exempt in a list. To achieve completeness a list often must exhaust news coverage. And bias, I agree and disagree, but don't believe it's a problem. Making a list of Americans killed only shows coverage bias, similar to how there are so many pages and information about alleged Russian war crimes and negative stuff about Russia but very few covering the other side, Ukraine. That's mostly because most editors show more interest in writing about negative Russian things and because most sources that cover the alleged Ukrainian crimes are suppressed in Wikipedia. In such cases, I think the better solution is simply to also write about the other side, not remove the favored side. Thus, a list of other foreign nationals killed would also be important. Btw, doesn't such global list exist? If it does, then the American-only list should be merged in it and not stick out.
Regarding the alleged WP:OR, I haven't checked. If there are problems, then they should be solved, but I don't think deleting the page just because of it is ideal. I'm not following this thread, so ping me if you want a reply. Alexis Coutinho (talk) [ping me] 21:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's the exact same routine coverage of non-American foreign civilians/soldiers killed in Ukraine during the current Russo-Ukraine war.
The only similar article I could find was list of deaths during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which includes people with Wikipedia articles, for the few that don't have one they appear to be important politicians or military officials. @Alexiscoutinho Traumnovelle (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
👍. Regarding the other list being of people with articles, I think it would be unfair to omit people without articles or military career (here). 🤔 Alexis Coutinho (talk) [ping me] 15:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it's to have a US specific list about a war being fought in Eastern Europe by two European countries. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It seems like there is a lack of policy-based reasons on both sides of this discussion. ITSUSEFUL isn't a strong defense but neither is the proposition of bias because we don't have articles on soldiers who have been killed from other countries. There are always other articles that have yet to be written.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only arguments that would make this not WP:INDISCRIMINATE would be crossing into WP:NOTMEMORIAL territory. The basic problem I have with the list is that lists of victims for tragedies like wars and genocides are much too long to be made into articles consistently. We can't accept articles that are just millions and millions of names (as a "list of Jews killed during the holocaust) would be, and so we also shouldn't accept articles just because they're shorter. The only thing that makes American deaths notable in a way that Ukrainian deaths aren't is the fact that there is less of them? I think that's a repugnant conclusion to reach, and so the whole idea should be tossed in the trash. BrigadierG (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is like the lists of 9/11 victims that pop up every so often in AfD; most of these people aren't otherwise notable. Looking at the list even 10 yrs from now, most still won't be notable. NOTMEMORIAL applies. To be blunt, many people pass away in tragedies like this event and as in 9/11, most aren't notable 10 or 20 yrs later; having a list of xyz that passed away doesn't serve any purpose other than as a memorial. The only individuals looking at Brendon Bowersox as an example in 20 yrs are likely to be family members or perhaps a very small group of historians. To the broader public, he would simply be another individual that passed away, who's name you can switch with any other from the list and it wouldn't make any difference for notability. Not to belittle any of these individuals or their contributions, but not everyone that passes away in a conflict needs a wikipedia article or even to be listed in a long list of otherwise non-notable people. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to a title along the lines of Military involvement of Americans in the Russo-Ukrainian War, and do the same for other articles along these lines in Category:Russo-Ukrainian War casualties. I am wary of the reasoning that compelled two relists of a discussion with a better than 2-1 ratio of "keep" !votes, at least some of which have policy-based rationales in the notability of the group as a group. However, since there is some additional context provided in the article, moving to a broader title would correct the scope from the narrower casualty list. BD2412 T 02:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe the soldiers killed in the conflict were current US army servicemen, they were veterans who chose to fight in Ukraine, meaning that the military involvement of Americans would make it an entirely separate article in its own right. Something worth exploring/expanding separately. Conyo14 (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposed title does not say "U.S. military involvement", just "Military involvement by Americans", which the people listed were. BD2412 T 19:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unfortunately, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Two out of 50+ people listed that do meet notability requirements could perhaps be mentioned in Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War or a similar article. All but one 'keep' argument are simply WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL. – Primium (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War: There are currently seven articles of the form, "List of <nationality> killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine" for foreign causualties fighting alongside Ukrainian forces. There are zero such articles for foreign causualties fighting alongside Russian forces, despite there being just as much such casualties, from just as many different countries. It's hard not to see the systematic bias here as some form of memorial. And of the hundreds listed in the lists we have, a grand total of two people are notable enough to have an article about them. The "historically important" argument voiced by the Keep side is a good reason for creating a primary source. That is not what we do here. Owen× ☎ 19:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin notice: This AfD was purportedly closed by an account with 17 edits that was soon after indef-blocked as a vandalism-only account. I've reverted this closure. Please wait for an admin or experienced editor to close this AfD. Sandstein 09:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vistamar School

Vistamar School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

advertising. All the sources self-referential, little hope of finding others, no NPOV Melchior2006 (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable school Traumnovelle (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: PROD'ed articles are ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating the article. However, there are not 3 articles that count towards GNG. There is the LA Times article I found and then you have two from the Daily Breeze. These count together - multiple articles from a single source count as one towards GNG. I think it is the Daily Breeze articles you meant to count, but just in case, I have looked at all the sources you added, and produced this analysis. I am, however, leaning keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - As per my comment above, We have two sources towards GNG. I consider "multiple" to mean three or more, to allow a thorough article to be written, but on the basis of the two, and particularly because one of them is in teh LA Times, I am leaning keep. Of course, an LA school is local for the LA Times - but the quality and reach of the source makes this a good candidate for notability. I also found other mentions in ProQuest, such as PR Newswire sources [101] but note the primary news reporting nature of many of these. Nevertheless, on the basis of the sources found to date, my feeling is that more are very likely to exist. Now that the article has been expanded a little, there is also a weak WP:HEY for keeping. I would like to see it expanded further, and I would like one more good source, but I don't see deletion as being a net positive in this case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Sirfurboy
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Accredditing Commission for Schools [102] Yes ~ Reliable but a primary source No Directory ✘ No
Vistamar School History [103] No No Primary source ~ 404 on link so cannot evaluate ✘ No
LA Times [104] Yes Yes The source is a major newspaper Yes The article focuses on the school founding as a concept ✔ Yes
Daily Breeze [105] AND Daily Breeze (second occurence - multiple articles from the same source count as one towards GNG) [106] Yes Local papers (see below) often publish press releases with little alteration, and as such the independence is questionable. In the first case the author is given as Shelly Leachman. [107] A communications officer since 2012, we are old She previously worked more than a decade as a journalist for news outlets across California, covering primarily education[108]. This piece has her byline, and as such it is unlikely it is just a press release. Indeed she seems to have interviewed students for this piece.
In the second case the author is credited as Ian Hanigan. Researching the author, I find Ian Hanigan serves as chief communications officer for the Orange County Department of Education, overseeing the Communications and Media Services unit.[109] However he was the Daily Breeze educational journalist until 2006 by the same source. This piece is dated 2005, so it appears he write the piece himself - it has his byline and this was his beat. 		Yes Daily Breeze is a local paper with 57,000 circulation, slogan "LAX to LA harbour". This is local coverage only, but still reliable and secondary. Yes With local sources, the question is whether there is sufficient information to write an article in the source. This criterion is often not well considered, but these articles appear to give the basis for some article. The problem with my analysis is that I don't have Proquest institutional access to these full records and they are not available in newspapers online, so I cannot fully assess whether these are in sufficient depth to meet this criterion. However we have two articles, three years apart, and looking at different aspects, so taken together, I am giving a cautious yes here. ✔ Yes
NCS directory [110] Yes ~ The source is reliable but this is a primary source No Directory only ✘ No
Niche [111] Yes I am not sure how Niche select schools for listing but will give it a pass on this as it fails on other measures ~ A directory is a type of primary source, and it is not clear how the information is collated. Some is clearly taken from the school's own materials, again primary No Directory listing, and substantial information is copied from the school and is not created by Niche. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Comment: Sirfurboy, Thanks for providing your analysis in the above table. It's very useful, and I know it's a significant amount of work. Were you able to access the ProQuest sources, yet, that I listed on the talk page? Also, non-local sources are not required for WP:GNG, only for WP:NORG. The latter specifically exempts non-profit educational institutions like Vistamar School: The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. I point this out because sometimes editors equate the term private with the term for profit, concluding erroneously that all private schools must meet NORG. Again, thanks for the care and thoroughness of your analysis. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The refs are primary, routine opening press releases etc., and databases. Even the LA Times is covering the opening and doesn't wash for GNG. Desertarun (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:50, 15 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Tjåland

AfDs for this article:
Albert Tjåland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This succumbed to an AFD before, but since then it has been recreated due to "coverage in international media". It happened at a time when the player was looking to be moving up in the football hierarchy, but with all due respect to the player, the career has stagnated, which I think allows us to see the subject in a clearer light. In an encyclopedic sence, Albert Tjåland fails WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:SUSTAINED, WP:TOOSOON, WP:SIRS and as a consequence WP:SPORTCRIT.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. My further thoughts are that the keep opinions are annulled by their lack of explanation and non-existing response as to the nomination statement, which detailed a failure of several policies. "significant coverage" and "many good sources" are unfounded opinions; "ongoing career with pro Norwegian top flight team" is false, Tjåland has an ongoing career with a semi-pro B team on the fourth tier. Geschichte (talk) 07:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input please, especially please provide the significant coverage alleged
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Each of the keep assertions in this process make claims of notability. Let's examine those claims: 1) Passes WP:GNG with WP:Significant coverage? The burden is on those wanting to keep, and this page is wanting sourcing which directly details, as WP:SPORTSPERSON requires. 2) Young player with ongoing career with pro Norwegian top flight team and many good sources? So what? None of those adjectives or sources directly details the subject in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. We have stats and routine sportsnews mostly linked to a relative. This is a biography for a living person. Delete. BusterD (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify—This is very obviously an example of WP:TOOSOON. Anwegmann (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject currently does not have the independent, reliable coverage providing WP:SIGCOV of the subject. As such, this BLP does not meet the WP:GNG. The first 5 sources are primary, while most of the remainder are routine. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. Let'srun (talk) 02:21, 30 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! 23:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interior Design Masters series 3

Interior Design Masters series 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Mostly original research. Dan arndt (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 02:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput Mughal marriage alliances

AfDs for this article:
Rajput Mughal marriage alliances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR written to promote a POV. The topic itself is not notable that it would need a separate article.Ratnahastin (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here for the record that I am in agreement with the proposed draftification. The article may not require deletion anymore. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are comparing a GA article with a poorly written article that mainly relies on outdated unreliable sources and fails to establish notability. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Poorly written" is totally irrelevant at AFD. Also only a fraction of the sources are primary and more than half do not date from the RAJ. The fact that you link "unreliable" to PRIMARY suggests that you don't understand either. This article needs a good clean-up, that's all, as the topic is obviously significant. Zerotalk 12:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Page seems to be illogical and a mixture of Tales. There isn't any particular record of such marriages Rudra Simha (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable topic mainly in western india (as the most classical example of Mariam uz Zamani and Akbar marriage belong to Rajasthan), cleanup of this article is required for better overview and number of reliable sources is also enough. TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject is as trivial as it gets and Wikipedia appears to be the only source right now that happened to make a topic out of it. There are no WP:HISTRS sources that have provided coverage to this topic. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't see any validity of the topic or existence of an actual "marriage alliance". Article just lists some marriages that are speculated to have been between a Rajput and a Mughal. That is rather trivial. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, strongly. Am I seeing double? There is a preponderance of reliable sources on that article, some even discuss the dynamics of these marriages overall. Few of them are old primary sources, most of the sources that establish notability are from the 90s and later. I have not gone source-by-source (will do in a while) but is difficult to believe that the multiple Rajput marriages of Akbar and Jahangir alone would not generate sufficient scholarship for notability, let alone all the marriages of Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb, minor princes and nobles. Those bringing up OR, SYNTH, and RAJ don't mention a single specific example where the article fails these policies when it has inline citations for almost every sentence as well as overarching citations that unify them into a si gle topic. @Ratnahastin: what is the POV supposedly being pushed here? What am I missing? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 12:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said the article has been created for pushing a POV because it relies on primary sources like Akbarnama, Jahangirnama for info and none of the references are exactly showing how this is a notable topic. Then there are some examples who have been hijacked by caste Rajput writers despite there is no evidence if they were Rajput. These things are better for discussing on the articles of the particular individuals instead of creating a list to impose a contradictory point of view.Ratnahastin (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting seems unlikely to achieve consensus, but with this much discussion, let's give it a try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - not my favourite kind of page, but I think it is undeniable that the phenomena is covered in scholarly literature, so the only WP:SYNTH argument is that the facts of individual relationships have been marshalled into a list. If that's SYNTH then all lists on en.wiki are at risk. JMWt (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The topic does not require a page of its own. WP:NOT specifically WP:DIRECTORY disagree with the page. (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (already voted keep above). I strongly object to the claim that this topic is not notable. Back when kings and princes ruled the world, arranged marriages were one of the most important ways that alliances were cemented and empires waxed and waned. This was true in Europe also. The political map of the world would be different today otherwise. So in fact this phenomenon is a key part of history. Zerotalk 03:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you mention which sources convinced you that the topic is notable?Ratnahastin (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seek and ye shall find. The Politics of Marriage in Medieval India is a book about it published by Oxford University Press, but surprisingly not cited. Zerotalk 15:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me where this book is focusing on this subject? The summary of this book that I have found tells it is rather talking about Rajput#Culture and ethos.Ratnahastin (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is scattered throughout the book. Note the emphasis on political marriage and marriage alliance — this was not just a matter of some people marrying each other. For example, on p80-81 we have "Political marriages soon came to play a significant role in the establishment of the Mughal rule. Akbar wanted to use political marriage alliances as an important means for building and consolidating local support. In fact, Akbar’s conception of the Rajput role in his expanding empire was responsible for a number of matrimonial alliances with the Rajputs, and he made at least 40 political marriages for himself, his three sons, and his eldest grandson. Ultimately the emperor made marriage alliances for himself and sons with almost all major Rajput chiefs." And on page 80, "the first Rajputs to make marriage alliances with the Mughal dynasty were seeking support for their efforts to gain or retain land. Raja Bharmal Kachwaha, involved in a long and bitter contest with a brother for the control of Amber and Mertiya Rathore, Jagmal Viramdevot, was similarly struggling with his brother Jagmal for Merta, both married their daughters to the young emperor in 1562–3 respectively." And the drama surrounding marriage alliances is exemplified by a quotation on page 79: "The Mugals demanded the hand of princess of Roopnagar, a junior branch of the Marwar house. But she rejected the proposal offering herself to Rana Raj Singh in return for her protection. The priest deemed it as an honour at being the messenger of her wishes. The Rana then appeared before Roopnager and took her away to his capital. This led to a war between Mewar and the Mughals." On page 84, "Marriage alliances were also entered into as a face saving device in order to bring an end to prolonged hostilities over land." On page 141, "When the Rathores of Marwar rose to prominence in the mid-fifteenth century, marriage alliances with them were keenly sought after." That's all taken from random pages and is more than enough to demonstrate not only the relevance of this book but also the notability of the topic. Zerotalk 14:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be discussing a broader topic, which is not just "Rajput Mughal" marriage alliance but more than that. Will you support moving the title to something like Political marriages in India? That would certainly clear up things and allow meaningful expansion and removal of WP:SYNTH from the present version.Ratnahastin (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have preferences as to how the topic is divided into articles. It can be discussed on the relevant article talk pages. Meanwhile it would be counterproductive to delete the part of the story that this article tells. Zerotalk 01:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This book also appears citable and contains a fair amount of relevant information. In particular it could help to move the article away from being a boring list. Zerotalk 06:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NXcrypto, if you have evidence, please file a case at WP:SPI. But AFDs are not an appropriate place to cast aspersions and make undocumented accusations against another editor. Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That editor must be talking about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HinduKshatrana. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above proposal to draftify as laid out by ArvindPalaskar seems good. I am not opposed to it. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Simply searching "Rajput" and "marriage" in the sources cited, like so [112] [113] [114] (page 19), produces strong evidence that this subject is covered in reliable, scholarly sources, was very significant to world history, and is not some made-up POV-pushing SYNTH. In addition, the delete !votes have been particularly weak, consisting of inaccurate vague waves at policy, very poorly-reasoned arguments that do not take into account any of the evidence provided, and several accusations of policy violations which have not yet been substantiated. Toadspike [Talk] 09:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I almost closed this discussion, but decided to weigh in with a comment instead. My reading is that the topic is covered pretty substantially in reliable sources and it seems like an appropriate topic for inclusion in Wikipedia. I am not seeing this as pushing a POV (being unfamiliar with the politics, so I may be naive), nor do I see this as being original research. In any case, the POV issues if there are any could be addressed via editing. I don't see much need to draftify the article; if there is interest in improving the article's tone or POV, I think that can be done without moving to the draft space. Malinaccier (talk) 14:57, 7 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.
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. Please add the sources you found in your participation in this discussion into the article so there is not a return trip to AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Syafi'i

Abdullah Syafi'i (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article (blogspot) and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  04:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. WP:GNG is met. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article (WP:NPOSSIBLE). Clicking on the Find sources: news and books links above shows that sustained coverage of Abdullah Syafi'i exists across many independent reliable sources. I have checked some of the non-English news sources using Google translate. Collectively they add up to significant coverage. The sustained coverage is also an indicator of notability (WP:SUSTAINED).-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that on 17 May 2024 WC gudang inspirasi redrafted the article using better sources.[115]-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:10, 22 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! 05:07, 22 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! 03:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Subject is notable even though most sources are not in English. Some sources I could find online were Tribunnews here states about how the subject was shot and martyred with his wife. Another here and so on here. This gives a preview that subject passes GNG. -Tumbuka Arch (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

École des Navigateurs

École des Navigateurs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NORG. The first source is from the school's website, and the second is a trivial mention in a movie. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Canada. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Being featured on a TV show isn't notable. The only coverage I can find about the school is [116] which talks about it being at risk in a natural disaster... There is coverage of a school in Quebec with a similar name, so finding sources is difficult. I don't see extensive coverage, meaning deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article on École des Navigateurs should be deleted because it lacks sufficient notability, providing minimal information beyond basic details about the school, which does not distinguish it from countless other primary schools. Additionally, it fails to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for verifiability and significance, lacking independent, reliable sources that demonstrate its importance. --Assirian cat (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/École des Navigateurs

I don't get it. This article has been up for nearly 6 years no issue. It is an important article especially for those that are french and live in Richmond BC. This school is tiny and has not much information on it. When you google its name (especially if you're doing so in Richmond BC) this article is one of the first things to pop up. All this drama about deleting the page for what? It is informative. Leave it alone please. Bob yo (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob yo you posted this comment here, on the discussion's talk page, not in the actual discussion. Would you like to move this comment? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Bob yo (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Conseil Scolaire Francophone , that operates this school, and the federation of francophone parents in British Colombia has been going to court over the course of 10 years to defend the Canadian right to learn in French regardless if the province you reside in is majority anglophone.

as you can see bellow from this article: https://fpfcb.bc.ca/parenthese-en/legal-case/a-historic-judgment-for-education-in-french-in-canada/?lang=en

The efforts undertaken by the CSF and the FPFCB over a period of ten years were successful, proving that the right to education in French was breached by the Province of British Columbia, and that this right must now be respected. The justices of Canada’s highest court have made it clear: “Children of rights holders recognized under Section 23 [of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms] must have an educational experience truly equivalent to that of the majority, regardless of the size of the school or program in question.”

This ruling was made by the Supreme court to assure francophone Canadians do not get assimilated. I go to wikipedia to get general information and see if what I am searching for exists. while it may not be the only source, it is a widely known website and allows people to know that a topic is at least relevent.

My friend had made this page long ago when we both studied as primary students there. I am now an adult and try to explain my scholarly upbringing to others and how it was unique and special. this is why I added more information to this page as I would like it be more relevant and contain details that assure it will not be deleted.

By deleting this article about École-des-Navigateurs, it would only strength the assimilation of francophone Canadians on west coast.

For those who live in Richmond or the Greater Vancouver area (2.2m population) who may want to relocate to Richmond, they would never know of a fully francophone school near by if the first thing that popped up was no longer this article. It is not only important on a personal level but on a societal and cultural level.

I believe deletion would only cause harm to francophones and should be immensely reconsidered, especially after the additional and substantial information I have added directly from the schools website.

Bellow you can see more information on the supreme court ruling, the federation of parents article and the campaign to support the pursuit of justice for local francophones:

https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18390/index.do

https://fpfcb.bc.ca/parenthese-en/legal-case/a-historic-judgment-for-education-in-french-in-canada/?lang=en

https://causejuridique.csf.bc.ca/index.php/historic-victory-for-b-c-francophones/#:~:text=Vancouver%2C%2012%20June%202020%20%E2%80%93%20In,parents%20in%20their%20claim%20against Alks taboulet (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Alks taboulet (talk • contribs) 19:31, May 17, 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 things:
  1. This has nothing to do with cultural assimilation. The article was nominated for deletion because it didn't meet notability guidelines, just like pretty much every article here at AfD.
  2. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information. The deletion of this article will not wipe the school form people's minds.
  3. The links you provided have nothing to do with the article. Only articles with significant coverage on the subject can be used to establish notability.
'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I very much agree, but those articles are about the Francophone population in BC, not about this particular school building. That's what we're looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Oaktree and, ironically, the individual above who advocates keep — who quite tellingly wrote "This school is tiny and has not much information on it". I absolutely agree, and hence I do not believe this meets the standards for inclusion (WP:N). Daniel (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of significant tornadoes by calendar day

List of significant tornadoes by calendar day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a cherry-picked list with no specific criteria. The article name is highly misleading as one would expect every tornado that occurred on each day to be listed (which is impossible). Dates on this page have mention of certain tornadoes or outbreaks without any mention of multiple other tornadoes or outbreaks of equal or greater significance occurring the same dates. Since not every tornado event can be included, this article is misleading and should be deleted. United States Man (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC) United States Man (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stand by. I gave a reason but it seems that was not carried over into the discussion for some reason. United States Man (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The title probably should have been changed ages ago. I changed it to reflect how it should read. I know it will get deleted anyway, but I’m still trying to plead my case. I wish I could be given the opportunity to fix this page - with a deadline - instead of it just being deleted entirely. Dym75 (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not gotten to work on this page as much as I’d like to, but there was a purpose to my edits, as many of them as there were, and I’d love more time to work on it: 1. It was proof that tornadoes can happen on every single day of the calendar year. People think that they can’t or don’t happen in certain months, but they do. 2. It was proof that tornadoes can happen on six of the seven continents (if there’s been one on Antarctica, then correct me!), trying to get away from being too America-centered since folks don’t realize how many places are affected beyond Tornado Alley, Dixie Alley, etc. I found more info on tornadoes that happened in Africa, South Asia, Australia, etc. 3. I had no intentions of making this a “fan page” - which sounds odd, anyway - but for educational purposes. I was trying to find tornadoes with significance, including all the EF5 tornadoes, the most significant EF4 tornadoes, the deadliest, the costliest, and so on. I was trying to include tornadoes that happen in states where folks least expect them (New England states, Hawaii, etc). 4. The whole point of continuing the page was for the folks who may stumble upon it and learn something. It would dispel myths which is incredibly important. The ignorance outside the weather community is astounding. Knowledge can save lives, right? I’m going to copy all the code/info and such because I spent days upon weeks in the past trying to fix this page, but work, health, and my elderly Mom have gotten in the way. If all else fails, and you folks just delete it anyway, I’ll just create my own website with this information. Stinks if I had to do that, though… dym75 16 May 2024

You cannot use Wikipedia for personal gain. Knowledge here has to be reliable, notable, and significantly covered. Feel free to find educational sources and ping them here. Conyo14 (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personal gain? I don’t understand. Also, every source has been reliable, all tornadoes listed are notable, and… significantly covered? Dym75 (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You specialize in hockey/sports pages? Why are you part of a discussion about the deletion of a weather article? This is so confusing… Dym75 (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because he can be? Anyone can be part of a discussion, no matter the topic. Heck, I write mainly galaxy pages! MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 17:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Way to make me feel inclusive. I have plenty of knowledge in all facets of Wikipedia, whilst continuing to expand my wisdom. That being said, the sources listed are WP:ROUTINE to a normal, yet typically catastrophic, weather event, but are not induced to the specific day of the week or day of the year. There are better arguments for the month they occur recognized with tornado patterns. Also, if people were curious about a date it happened, they can review List of tornado events by year and go from there. Conyo14 (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Half of that didn’t make sense. I literally don’t know how to ask for clarification. Dym75 (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with knowledge and saving lives. The article is non-encyclopedic. You could add 700,000 bytes to the page, and the article still would be AfD because it isn't needed. I hope you Mom gets better! :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 11:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for saying that about my Mom.
I guess I don’t understand why someone didn’t nominate this page for deletion years ago. It’s been around for well over a decade and god knows I certainly wouldn’t have bothered doing loads of research and trying to improve upon it.
There is/was criteria for selecting the tornadoes I did. They were EF5s or EF4s, they were historically significant with regard to advances in meteorology, how tornadoes were recorded. They were culturally significant because of the people or places affected, the loss of life or property. They were proof of significant tornadoes on other continents. I dug up information from a variety of other Wiki articles, from NOAA databases, major news stories, other sources. I was trying to keep it relevant on a worldwide scale with as many other major tornadoes from other continents as possible.
You folks will probably boot me from Wikipedia forever for changing the title, but I did anyway: “List of significant tornadoes by calendar day.” That was the idea behind my edits. Actual significance and not a fan page - still don’t understand what that means. (And I know folks may have added a bunch of random events between May and November or during other times of the year that didn’t line up with the standard I was trying to create for the page. That certainly doesn’t help my case.) Dym75 (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, nobody is THAT harsh (although I will say some crazy people are on here). Even if it was renamed, it's all good. :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 17:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dym75: From WP:NCLIST: Best practice is to avoid words like notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. in the title of a list article. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, aren’t encyclopedias supposed to be about learning, gaining knowledge? Dym75 (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dym75, given the arguments expressed thus far, this article will likely be deleted. Your time should be spent saving the content you want to transfer to your own website so you aren't asking for it to be restored later so you can do this. Read the room, no one is supporting Keeping this article, if you want to be preserving your work, you should be doing that now as the tide is not going to suddenly turn in the opposite direction and save this article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did that three days ago. Thanks for your concern. Dym75 (talk) 03:54, 19 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. ✗plicit 03:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Roberts (sailor)

Alan Roberts (sailor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth. The event they are primary known for does not have an article. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  02:51, 15 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. I see a strong consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1997 Prairie Dell-Jarrell tornado

1997 Prairie Dell-Jarrell tornado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This tornado has an ample section at 1997 Central Texas tornado outbreak which more than covers this tornado. Having a separate article to cover the same information is a WP:CONTENTFORK. The author also recently started 2024 Sulphur tornado, which was overwhelming merged: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Sulphur tornado. United States Man (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the excess character number comes from the lead section and the "Case studies" section which uses unnecessarily long quotes and could be entirely condensed into one paragraph. Quantity does not equal quality. United States Man (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section is perfectly acceptable in length, and I will say that the quotes can be sheared down a little bit. It still doesn’t make it a complete content fork, however. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 10:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - the main outbreak article is what… 23,000 bytes? This article is over 2 times longer (over 43,000 bytes). Also “more than covers the tornado”? Does it go over national reactions, documentation of the event; including the famous “dead man walking” photo, case studies, and even road names? “More than covers tornado” isn’t a good reason for deletion in this case.
Also, no need to bring 2024 Sulphur tornado up in this. Even after removing the “case studies” part that you had talked about, it was still over 4,300 bytes. So that isn’t really an excuse to delete either. This includes the copyvios in the ""fatalities" section, lead length, "case studies" length, among other things. I will continue to work on rewrites as this fine Tuesday progresses.MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 10:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
one more note, this article has like 10 more images than the main summary, and I oulfnt work with merging, as you can’t merge “documentation” and “case studies” into it. Also, the case studies part is perfectly acceptable, and both sources are confirmed to be Public Domain. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 10:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep – One of the most powerful and deadliest tornados in US history. It is also the last EF5 tornado to happen in Texas as of 2014. No reason what so ever to remove. Gengeros (talk) 06:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: The article discusses about a major tornado event in US history. There is absolutely no reason to delete this page. Just expand the page and that would be all. RandomWikiPerson_277talk page or something 15:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At ~49k bytes it's enough to stand on its own and the Jarrell tornado itself is the main source of notability for the outbreak article. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - as far as I can tell, there isn't enough unique information in the article, compared to the outbreak article, which, by the way, is only 6,622 words. The article for the individual article is 4,245 words, but as far as I can tell, there is little, if any information, that isn't already in the outbreak article. Since the article started as a copy and paste, I think whatever unique information that is here should be merged back into the outbreak article, which is already a good article. I'd like to remind other users that article length is based on words, not the number of bytes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - As of now, this page now has enough information that it would be unreasonable to merge this with the parent outbreak page. I don't see a reason for a delete or even a merge when casual readers will look for a direct page on the topic instead of looking at the outbreak synopsis. humbaba!! (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep – There is enough information in this article to stand on its own.
Poodle23 (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly KEEP - There is more than enough information for this article to stand on its own. It definitely meets WP:Lasting. 12.74.221.43 (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So yeah, I am very very strongly in favor of KEEPING this article. 12.74.221.43 (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterating, please don’t delete. 12.74.221.43 (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth is this article even nominated for deletion in the first place??? 12.74.221.43 (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because much of it was copied and pasted from 1997 Central Texas tornado outbreak. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Initially. It’s been heavily improved since then and was assigned as a B-class article. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 17:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I’m surprised Jarrell doesn’t have an article already, that tornado was so significant. It deserves its own article. There are also articles of less destructive tornadoes and other F5/EF5 tornadoes.

JulesTheKilla (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - There are numerous comments here arguing to keep the article because of how severe the Jarrell tornado was. The significance of the event is not in question, though. The deletion argument is not based on notability, it is based on being an unacceptable kind of content fork. Even now, the vast majority of the article has just been copy and pasted from the outbreak article, with some minor rewording since this nomination. That does not change the fact that very little information here is distinct. Things that are distinct, such as the dead man walking photograph and case studies surrounding the tornado, can be (and previously were) succinctly described instead of being purposely drawn out to fill out the article. Nobody argues this was a notable tornado. That is also not the point here. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 23:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We’ve already gone over this, the vast majority are still in support in keeping this article, and the fact that people don’t realize it even was a content form says a lot. As of writing this, the article has been expanded enough to not qualify as a content fork, and copyvio-wise the vast majority agree that it is not, as of now, a content fork. Community concensus goes, too. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 23:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I do apologize if that came off as aggressive. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 23:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Vets (company)

The Vets (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a company that does not pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Coverage is limited to news about product launches and market openings that are excluded from consideration as trivial under NCORP. Cannot find multiple examples of significant, secondary, independent coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salem Al Shamsi

Salem Al Shamsi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and found in BEFORE fail WP:SIRS, nothing found addressing the subject directly and indepth meeting WP:SIGCOV. Source eval:

Comments Source
Government About page, fails WP:SIRS 1. "UAE Embassy in Abuja-About the Ambassador". www.mofa.gov.ae. Retrieved 2023-11-13.
Mill news about official presenting credentials, fails WP:SIRS does not address subject directly and indepth for WP:SIGCOV 2. ^ Jump up to:a b "United Arab Emirates Ambassador Presents Credentials to President of Nigeria". African Business. 2023-08-25. Retrieved 2023-11-13.
Mill news, fails WP:SIRS does not address subject directly and indepth for WP:SIGCOV 3. ^ "FCT Minister, Wike receives UAE ambassador, urges swift reversal of visa ban on Nigerians". ThisNigeria. 2023-11-13. Retrieved 2023-11-13.

BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  02:38, 15 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 00:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Badal Sesher Pakhi

Badal Sesher Pakhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  02:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No coverage found other than the announcement of the series. ABP Bengali provides some coverage, as does Etvbharat, but I'm not sure about Etv’s reliability. Both of them are just announcements of the series; no other coverage found. Grabup (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plenty of coverage available. See for example Hindustan Times. ABP and ETV are pretty major outlets as well, for what it's worth. --Soman (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Hindustan Times article only talks about marriage and doesn't provide any information regarding the series at all. Additionally, when you said "ABP and ETV are pretty major outlets as well," you should know that Republic World is also a major outlet, but it is considered unreliable. Similarly, there is no consensus that ETV and ABP are reliable sources at WP:ICTFSOURCES, but I personally think that ABP should be considered reliable but I question ETV's reliability. GrabUp - Talk 11:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Sun_Bangla#Currently_broadcast. Per nom fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG. The series is an individual television program and is far less notable as it likely airs in only one local media market and not to a broader regional or national audience. Sources are poor with not enough coverage. RangersRus (talk) 13:44, 16 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! 05:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 02:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cerebra (charity)

Cerebra (charity) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The external links that are presumably used as references are not reliable, as they are either written by the organization or people connected with it, or barely have any information on it. Most of the sources that I can find also seem to be written by the organization or people connected with it.

Overall, there don't seem to be any independent sources with significant coverage. Ships & Space(Edits) 02:15, 15 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. I see a consensus that the newly located sources satisfy notability standards for schools. A possible rename can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Chinese Christian Union Logos Academy

Hong Kong Chinese Christian Union Logos Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NORG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are listings, name mentions, routine mill news, nothing that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth  // Timothy :: talk  02:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename to Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:

    All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)

    Sources
    1. Lin, Zhong 林钟; Deng, Shaobing 邓少冰 (2014). "走进香港真道书院小学" [Visit Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy]. 七彩语文（习作） [Colourful Language (Exercises)] (in Chinese). No. 10. East China Normal University. ISSN 1673-4998. Retrieved 2024-05-15 – via CQVIP [zh].

      Colourful Language (Exercises) is a magazine published by the Chinese Education Research Center of East China Normal University. According to this description from Google Translate, "Colourful Language (Exercises) was officially launched in January 2015, with academic guidance provided by the Chinese Education Research Center of East China Normal University. The magazine is closely linked to the reform of basic education curriculum and strives to provide suitable resources and platforms for middle school Chinese teachers to meet the needs of teachers for daily teaching and improvement of professional qualities."

      The abstract notes: "本期的＂大眼睛看世界＂,小编将和大家一起走进香港一所名校——香港华人基督教联会真道书院。真道书院位于香港调景岭湾畔,学校分小学和中学部,与其他学校不同,真道书院学生没有统一的校服。小学部学生在中文课上使用的是内地出版的小学语文课本,他们觉得教材文字优美,内容包含了古今中外的文化特色,和浓厚的道德教育元素，很符合小学语文教育的需要。"

      From Google Translate: "In this issue of "Seeing the World with Big Eyes", the editor will go with you to a famous school in Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy. Union Logos Academy is located on the shores of Tiu Keng Ling Bay in Hong Kong. The school is divided into primary and secondary schools. Unlike other schools, students at Union Logos Academy do not have uniforms. Students in the primary school use primary school Chinese textbooks published in the Mainland in their Chinese classes. They feel that the textbooks are beautifully written, contain cultural characteristics of ancient and modern times, Chinese and foreign cultures, and have strong moral education elements, which are in line with the needs of primary school Chinese education. ... In the first two years of elementary school, Union Logos Academy expects students to lay a solid foundation of knowledge and learn self-care, self-study and self-reflection skills. The school focuses on constructing a school-based curriculum and uses some Chinese and art textbooks from the Mainland."

    2. Lok, Irene (2015-05-11). "將軍澳一條龍直資 香港華人基督教聯會真道書院 中小學" [Tseung Kwan O One-stop Direct Subsidy Scheme. Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy. Primary and Secondary Schools]. Sunday Kiss (in Chinese). New Media Group [zh]. Archived from the original on 2024-05-24. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      Lok, Irene (2015-05-11). "將軍澳一條龍直資 香港華人基督教聯會真道書院 中小學" [Tseung Kwan O One-stop Direct Subsidy Scheme. Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy. Primary and Secondary Schools]. Sunday Kiss (in Chinese). New Media Group [zh]. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The article notes: "2002年創校的真道年資較其他直資學校淺，被定為新派直資學校，卻是全港唯一採用「十一年一貫」課程模式的學校，分兩年基礎階段、五年拓展階段及四年通達階段，以十一年完成小學及中學課程。 ... 在小學首兩年基礎階段，真道期望學生打穩知識基礎，學好自理、自學及自省能力。學校着力建構校本課程，採用部分內地中文及美術科教材"

      From Google Translate: "Founded in 2002, Union Logos Academy has a younger school years than other DSS schools and is designated as a new DSS school. However, it is the only school in Hong Kong that adopts the "11-year consistent" curriculum model, which is divided into two years of basic stage and five years of expansion stage. and the four-year mastery stage, which takes eleven years to complete the primary and secondary school courses. ... In the first two years of elementary school, Union Logos Academy expects students to lay a solid foundation of knowledge and learn self-care, self-study and self-reflection skills. The school focuses on constructing school-based curriculum and adopts some mainland Chinese and art textbooks."

    3. A, Yin 阿言 (2024-02-01). "專訪｜香港華人基督教聯會真道書院 多元體驗式學習培育未來領袖" [Exclusive Interview｜Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy's diversified experiential learning cultivates future leaders] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The article notes: "學校著重學生全方位發展，學生從小學便培育體、美特質，提供多項興趣班予學生選擇，如跳繩、跆拳道、琵琶及烏克麗麗等。另外，為培養學生閱讀習慣，自小學階段設有閱讀時間，同學在操場集合一同閱讀，從小學階段養成自己探索知識的習慣。中學則設有 DEAR Time（Drop Everything And Read），讓學生暫時放下功課及其他事務，專心閱讀。學校更會舉辦不同活動，如閱讀馬拉松、圖書日、書展等讓同學接觸不同類型的書籍，鼓勵學生閱讀。"

      From Google Translate: "The school focuses on the all-round development of students. Students develop physical and aesthetic qualities from elementary school, and provides students with a variety of interest classes to choose from, such as rope skipping, taekwondo, pipa and ukulele. In addition, in order to cultivate students' reading habits, reading time is set up from the primary school level. Students gather in the playground to read together, and develop the habit of exploring knowledge by themselves from the primary school level. Middle schools have DEAR Time (Drop Everything And Read), which allows students to temporarily put aside their homework and other matters and concentrate on reading. The school also organizes different activities, such as reading marathons, book days, book fairs, etc., to expose students to different types of books and encourage students to read."

    4. Wong, Ming-fong 王明芳 (2021-06-02). "【直資中學】一條龍11年完成小學中學課程　真道書院雙軌制曾出產IB狀元" [[Direct Subsidy Scheme Secondary School] One-stop primary school and middle school courses completed in 11 years. Union Logos Academy’s dual-track system has produced IB top scorers]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The article notes: "位於將軍澳的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院屬中小學直資一條龍學校，也是全港唯一以11年完成小學及中學課程的學校。真道書院既提供中學文憑試課程（DSE），同時開辦國際文憑課程（IB），學生在公開試成績優異，過去亦曾誕生IB狀元。"

      From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy in Tseung Kwan O is a one-stop school under direct subsidy for primary and secondary schools. It is also the only school in Hong Kong that completes primary and secondary school courses in 11 years. Union Logos Academy not only provides the Diploma of Secondary Education Examination (DSE) course, but also offers the International Baccalaureate Diploma (IB) course. Students have achieved excellent results in public examinations, and IB top scorers have also been born in the past."

    5. Wong, Ming-fong 王明芳 (2023-10-10). "直私面試丨直資真道書院2023年小一面試題目 老師話+傳豆袋考小朋友反應" [Direct Private Interview丨Direct Subscription Union Logos Academy Primary One Interview Questions 2023 Teacher’s Words + Bean Bag Test Children's Responses]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-24. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      Wong, Ming-fong 王明芳 (2023-10-10). "直私面試丨直資真道書院2023年小一面試題目 老師話+傳豆袋考小朋友反應" [Direct Private Interview丨Direct Subscription Union Logos Academy Primary One Interview Questions 2023 Teacher’s Words + Bean Bag Test Children's Responses]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The article notes: "位於將軍澳區直資學校的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，即提供本地文憑試（DSE）課程，同時開辦國際文憑（IB）課程，多年來深受家長歡迎。真道書院小一面試有兩輪，第一輪是小朋友自行面試，若成功通過會進入第二輪面試，家長也會獲邀出席，TOPick邀請了為女兒報考7間直私小學的港媽梁太，拆解真道書院小一面試第一階段考核的内容。"

      From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, located in the direct subsidy school in Tseung Kwan O District, provides local Diploma Examination (DSE) courses and also offers International Baccalaureate (IB) courses. It has been popular among parents for many years. There are two rounds of primary one interviews at Union Logos Academy. The first round is for children to interview on their own. If they successfully pass, they will enter the second round of interviews. Parents will also be invited to attend. TOPick invited Mrs. Leung, a mother from Hong Kong who applied for her daughter to seven direct private primary schools to dismante the contents of the first stage of the primary school interview at Union Logos Academy."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy (traditional Chinese: 香港華人基督教聯會真道書院; simplified Chinese: 香港华人基督教联会真道书院)) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply, promo, interviews, all obviously based on the same info/source, nothing above show WP:SIRS or notability, they just show marketing at work. Nothing wrong with promotion, but it doesn't equal notability. // Timothy :: talk  12:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These sources aren't doing what they're purported to be. Source 1 appears to be the equivalent of a WP:TRADES publication. Sources 2, 4 and 5 are brief listings of multiple school options, no significant coverage. (Moreover, 4 and 5 are on the Hong Kong Economic Times' "TOPick" subsite, which appears to be a advertorial Daily Mail-style infotainment site, not a reliable source.) Source 3 is described as an "interview," which is a primary source and thus not eligible to validate notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first source, a magazine published by the Chinese Education Research Center of East China Normal University, is not equivalent to a WP:TRADES publication. It is an academic magazine, not a trade magazine. For the second source, I linked to the wrong article because when scrolling to the bottom of the article, the website changes the URL to the next article. I've fixed the link. The incorrect link did not mention the school. The updated link is a full article about the school.

    The third source contains sufficient non-interview content to amount to significant coverage. The fourth source discusses other schools but provides significant coverage of this school. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

    For the fifth source, I linked to the wrong article for the same reason discussed above. I've fixed the link. The fifth article is about the school's interview process and is significant coverage.

    I consider TOPick to be a reliable source. According to this information from a Telum panel discussion with the Hong Kong Economic Times Group about TOPick:

    Editorial team

    Around 30 journalists and editors, each contributing five stories daily.

    An independent editorial and video team oversees each sector.

    Editorial focus

    80 per cent on parenting and health, 20 per cent on entertainment, celebrity and lifestyle.

    Parenting: general parenting news and education information through a section called 「Band 1 學堂」, which features information on kindergarten, primary and secondary school, elite education and overseas study.

    The publication has journalists, editors, and an independent editorial team. It is not an "advertorial" site. It aims to inform its readers about parenting and education topics. Cunard (talk) 08:51, 24 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! 05:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. See my comments on the sources above; I do not believe they are sufficiently reliable nor offer enough significant coverage to meet GNG or NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Dclemens1971 assessment. I don't believe the additional sources found help with notability. LibStar (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am surprised that reliable sources from a Chinese academic journal and Hong Kong newspapers are considered insufficient to establish notability. Sources likely these previously have been sufficient to establish notability for schools, which must meet only Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and not Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which "establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article".

    An alternative to deletion is to merge to Tiu Keng Leng#Education, where this school is located. School articles should be merged, not deleted, when there is a suitable alternative to deletion.

    A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.

    Cunard (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So are you now !voting for merge not keep? LibStar (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My first choice is a keep. My second choice is a merge if consensus is against a standalone article. The five sources I've listed were found through a Google search. Since editors consider them insufficient to establish notability, I will do a more exhaustive search for print sources. These are sources that cannot be found in a Google search. It takes a lot more time to do this exhaustive search, so I usually do the Google search approach first.

    The first source I found casts an unflattering light on the school as it says that 20% of the teachers resigned owing to being overworked. Here is the source:

    1. "真道書院9教師呈辭" [9 teachers from Union Logos Academy resign]. The Sun (in Chinese). 2005-08-04. p. A12.

      The article notes: "在電視節目《殘酷一叮》三連霸的「莫生」莫凱謙現正就讀的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，今年將有五分一教師共九人離職，有教師指離職原因是因為工作辛苦。"

      From Google Translate: "One-fifth of the teachers from Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, where Mok Kai-him, who won three consecutive championships in the TV program "Cruel One", is currently studying, will resign this year. Some teachers said that the reason for resigning was because of the hard work."

      The article notes: "○二年創校的真道書院是一間直資一條龍學校，中小學共用約五十名教師，當中有近兩成共九名教師，在今學年完結後離任。"

      From Google Translate: "Founded in 2002, Union Logos Academy is a direct subsidy one-stop school with a total of about 50 teachers in primary and secondary schools. Among them, nearly 20%, a total of nine teachers, resigned after the end of this school year."

    I will keep searching for sources and when I'm done, I will post the rest of the sources here. I will do this within the next few hours. Cunard (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I explained above why I didn't search for these sources earlier. I have found numerous additional sources about the school. I omitted the numerous positive articles and have focused on the negative articles since there were concerns earlier about the sources being "marketing" or "promotion". I think these sources should be sufficient to establish notability. If they are not, I could continue my search for sources since these are only some of the hundreds of results about the school that I found. Here are the additional sources.
    1. The Sun article about 20% of the school's teachers resigning for being overworked 2005
    2. Articles about the school's primary school students being disallowed in 2008 from participating in a competition because of how its academic system is different from other schools':
      Sources
      1. Chen, Qiuxia 陳秋霞 (2008-02-25). "真道小六生列學生參賽 學體會評級方式惹非議" [Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy Primary 6 students participate in the competition, and the learning experience grading method has attracted criticism]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). p. A9.

        The article notes: "西貢區的香港華人基督教聯會真道學院第六年辦學，一直採用「兩年基礎階段+五年拓展階段+四年通達階段」的十一年中小學一條龍教學制度，不同於現行「六年小學+五年中學”十一年中小學教育。若依年齡劃分，現時真道二百二十一位就讀「拓階四」的學生是傳統的「小六生」，不過該階段學生接受政府中學資助，○七/○八年中學概覽內也劃分他們為「中一生」。"

        From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Council Zhendao College in Sai Kung District is in its sixth year of operation. It has been using an eleven-year one-stop teaching system for primary and secondary schools of "two years of basic stage + five years of expansion stage + four years of mastery stage", which is different from the current "six-year" "Primary school + five years of secondary school" eleven years of primary and secondary education. If divided by age, the current 221 students of Zhendao who are studying in "Top Level 4" are traditional "Primary 6 students". However, students at this stage receive government secondary school subsidies and are also classified in the 2007/08 Secondary School Profile. They are "middle life"."

      2. "真道「小學生」被禁參賽風波" [Controversy over Logos Academy's "primary school students" being banned from participating in the competition]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2008-02-26. p. F1.

        The article notes: "以十一年中小學學制為賣點的將軍澳香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，想不到其與別不同的學制，引起一場小學生停賽風波。第六年在該校就讀的拓展階段四年級(DS4)學生，尷尬地處於中小學的中間點，學界體育聯會西貢區小學分會認為，DS4學生既接受中學資助，應被界定為中學生，故此禁止參加本學年剩餘的小學際與區際比賽。"

        From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy in Tseung Kwan O, which sells its eleven-year primary and secondary education system, unexpectedly caused a controversy among primary school students due to its different academic system. The expansion stage fourth grade (DS4) students who study in the school for the sixth year are awkwardly in the middle point between primary and secondary schools. The Sai Kung District Primary School Branch of the School Sports Federation believes that DS4 students should be defined as secondary school students since they receive secondary school subsidies. They are prohibited from participating in inter-elementary and inter-district competitions for the remainder of the school year."

      3. "直資校參加學界賽腰斬" [DSS schools lose half of their participation in school competition]. Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2008-02-25. p. A20.

        The article notes: "本港學制日益多元化，不再局限於傳統中小學之分，惟學界體育比賽制度僵化，繼續以中小學劃分，令到一間直資名校的近百名十一歲學生，因其所讀的課程等同於中學課程，被拒與傳統學制同樣十一歲的小六學生比賽，學生參賽資格即時被腰斬，學子無辜，慘成官僚制度下，政治鬥爭的犧牲品。"

        From Google Translate: "Hong Kong’s academic system is increasingly diversified and is no longer limited to traditional primary and secondary schools. However, the school sports competition system is rigid and continues to be divided into primary and secondary schools. This has caused nearly a hundred 11-year-old students from a prestigious direct subsidy school to be divided. The courses he studied were equivalent to middle school courses, and he was refused to compete with the 11-year-old Primary 6 students in the traditional school system. The student's qualifications were immediately cut in half. The innocent student became a victim of political struggles under the bureaucracy."

    3. The school was harshly criticised in 2010 by Hong Kong's Audit Commission for administrative misconduct regarding property purchases and tuition fees. This led to hearings by the Legislative Council Accounts Committee. It led to at least one hundred articles covering the fallout which spanned at least several months. Here are a few of those sources:
      Sources
      1. "德信售校章利潤1.5倍 教局六方面跟進監察直資校" [Dexin's profit from selling school seals is 1.5 times. Education Bureau follows up on six aspects to monitor DSS schools]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). 2010-12-21. p. A7.

        The article notes: "立法會帳目委員會昨天就直資學校的監管舉行最後一場聆訊，重點討論三所直資學校的違規行徑，包括運用七千萬元投資的德望學校、用一千萬元購買三個該物業的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，"

        From Google Translate: "The Legislative Council Accounts Committee held the last hearing on the supervision of DSS schools yesterday, focusing on the irregularities of three DSS schools, including the Good Hope School, which used HK$70 million of investment, the Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which used HK$10 million to purchase three properties ..."

        The article notes: "議員何秀蘭質疑，真道書院有否將盈餘儲備作投資或購買物業，減少學校現金流，以用作申請加學費理由。教育局首席助理秘書長李煜輝表示，該校○八╱○九及○九╱一○兩學年均有加費，但局方發現於○九年八月三十一日的現金流有七千多萬元，連同物業和基金股票等，已超過局方規定的儲備上限，由於盈餘過高，局方已拒絕其一○╱一一學年加學費的申請。局方稱，核准學校加費不單是考慮學校現金流，亦有其他因素。局長孫明揚補充，校方加費須得到家長同意，校方亦要遞交發展計劃，由局方釐定學校是否可以存有大量盈餘。"

        From Google Translate: "Councillor Cyd Ho questioned whether Logos Academy had used its surplus reserves for investment or property purchases to reduce the school’s cash flow, which could be used as a reason to apply for a tuition increase. Li Yuhui, Chief Assistant Secretary of the Education Bureau, said that the school had increased fees in both the 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 academic years, but the bureau found that the cash flow on August 31, 2009 was more than 70 million yuan, together with properties and fund stocks, which exceeded the reserve limit stipulated by the bureau. Due to the excessive surplus, the bureau has rejected its application for a tuition increase in the 2010/2011 academic year. The bureau said that approving a school to increase fees is not only based on the school's cash flow, but also on other factors. Secretary Sun Mingyang added that the school must obtain the consent of parents to increase fees, and the school must also submit a development plan, and the bureau will determine whether the school can have a large surplus."

      2. "真道放寬學費減免收入限制" [Logos Academy relaxes income limit for tuition exemption]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2010-12-20. p. A12.

        The article notes: "上月審計報告重點審查的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，被揭發擁有1900 萬盈餘但學費減免條件嚴苛，又以個人名義購置單位作教師宿舍。真道學院近日已作多方改善，昨日3 名校董連同校長，與400 名家長會面，提出5項措施回應，包括放寬申請家庭的學費減免收入限制，鼓勵清貧學生報讀。"

        From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which was the focus of last month’s audit report, was revealed to have a surplus of HK$19 million but had strict conditions for tuition exemptions and purchased units in individual names as teachers’ dormitories. Logos Academy has made many improvements in recent days. Yesterday, three school directors and the principal met with 400 parents and proposed five measures in response, including relaxing the income limit for tuition exemptions for applying families and encouraging poor students to apply."

      3. "真道書院開家長會 跟進審計報告指控" [Logos Academy held a parent meeting to follow up on the accusations in the audit report]. Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). 2010-12-20. p. A26.

        The article notes: "遭審計報告羅列多宗「罪行」的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，昨天下午舉行家長會。該校多名校董出席，與約400名家長會面。"

        From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which was hit with numerous “crimes” in the audit report, held a parents’ meeting yesterday afternoon. Many school directors attended and met with about 400 parents."

      4. "真道書院聘會計師核賬" [Logos Academy hires accountants to audit accounts]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2010-12-20. p. A14.

        The article notes: "於直資審計風暴中屢被批評多項行政失當的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，昨日再召開家長會，安排校董會向家長講解事件最新進展。校監陸幸泉提出多項措施「補鑊」，包括聘請羅兵咸會計師重新檢視學校帳目、釐定學校採購政策競價投標準則等，以個人名義購買的一間村屋及居屋亦將作物業轉名事宜。"

        From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which has been repeatedly criticised for multiple administrative misconducts during the direct subsidy audit storm, held another parent meeting yesterday and arranged for the school board to explain the latest developments of the incident to parents. School Superintendent Luk Xingquan proposed a number of measures to "make up for the wok", including hiring accountants Luo Bingham to re-examine the school's accounts, determining the school's procurement policy and bidding criteria, etc."

      5. "真道近2000萬助學金未批出 教局反對用作添設備 必要時接管學校" [Logos Academy's nearly 20 million scholarships have not been approved. The Education Bureau objects to using them to add equipment and take over the school if necessary.]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2010-12-01. p. A4.

        The article notes: "於直資學校「審計風暴」中被重點查帳的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，已被教育局書面警告須及時糾正違規買物業及助學金儲備使用率低等問題。... 接近政府的消息稱，教育局認為學費減免是為有經濟需要的學生而設，不認同用作添置設備；局方會留意校方最終如何落實改善違規工作，若成效不彰，便會由教育局常任秘書長派員進駐學校管理委員會接手校政。"

        From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which was the focus of audits in the "audit storm" of direct subsidy school schools, has been given a written warning by the Education Bureau to promptly correct problems such as illegal property purchases and low utilisation of bursary reserves. ... Sources close to the government said that the Education Bureau believes that the tuition fee reduction is for students with financial needs and does not agree that it will be used to purchase equipment. The Bureau will pay attention to how the school ultimately implements the improvement of violations. If the results are not effective, the Education Bureau's permanent secretary-general will dispatch personnel to the school management committee to take over school administration."

      6. Ni, Qingjiang 倪清江; Xia, Zhili 夏志禮 (2010-11-27). "最後通牒即將到期校監校長拒轉業權　教局擬進駐真道校董會" [The ultimatum is about to expire. The school supervisor and principal refuse to transfer ownership. The Education Bureau plans to join the Logos Academy Board of Directors.]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). p. A5.

        The article notes: "被審計署揭23宗罪的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，挪用1,000萬元非政府資金購置3項物業，業權卻是校監和校長。教育局原來早已知悉，多番促請他們將業權轉回校方，但不獲理會，早前發出最後通牒，日內到期。若真道繼續當教育局無到，局方將派人進駐該校校董會，情形有如去年撤銷辦學權的臻美黃幹亨小學暨國中學校的翻版。"

        From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which was exposed by the Audit Office for 23 crimes, misappropriated HK$10 million of non-governmental funds to purchase three properties, but the ownership was owned by the school supervisor and principal. It turned out that the Education Bureau had known about it for a long time and had repeatedly urged them to transfer the ownership back to the school, but was ignored. It had earlier issued an ultimatum that would expire within a few days. If Logos Academy continues to be in charge of the Education Bureau and there is no one, the Bureau will send people to the school board of directors, and the situation will be a replica of the Zhenmei Huangqianheng Primary School and Junior High School that revoked its schooling rights last year."

    4. "自辦刊物" [Self-organised publications]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2010-07-06. p. E6.

      The column says at the bottom that it was written by the Sing Tao Daily editor-in-chief.

      The column notes: "位於將軍澳的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，是近年區內成立的直資中學，該校就辦了一本名為《真道人》(見圖)的刊物，介紹學校的理念和發展，至今已經出版了兩期。 真道書院出版這本《真道人》，以一本機構刊物來說，可以說不簡單，新一期的內容除了由校長講解學校取得的國際認證AdvancED外，還有其他親子專題、閱讀版等，從內容、版面設計到紙質，都顯示投入了相當的資源。從刊物的製作班底看，除了校內老師班底，還有資深教育新聞從業員郭玉蘭參與，難怪專題報道形式和深度相當接近傳媒。"

      From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy in Tseung Kwan O is a direct subsidy secondary school established in the district in recent years. The school has published a publication called "Logos People" (see picture) to introduce the school's philosophy and development. So far, it has two issues were published. Logos Academy publishes "Logos People", which is not simple for an institutional publication. In addition to the principal explaining the international certification AdvanceED obtained by the school, the new issue also includes other parent-child topics, reading editions, etc. From the content, layout design to paper quality, it shows that considerable resources have been invested. Judging from the publication's production team, in addition to the school's teacher team, Guo Yulan, a senior education news practitioner, is also involved. No wonder the format and depth of the special report are quite similar to those of the media."

    Cunard (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 22:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College

G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NORG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are listings, primary, name mentions, routine mill news, nothing that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth  // Timothy :: talk  02:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:

    All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)

    Sources
    1. Lam, Yim-hung 林艷虹 (2022-11-24). "優才（楊殷有娣）書院 特色課程培育多元人才" [G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College's special courses cultivate diverse talents]. Hong Kong Economic Journal (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The article notes: "優才（楊殷有娣）書院（下稱優才）為直資一條龍學校，小學初小部（小一至小三）位於旺角校舍，高小部（小四至小六）及中學部（中一至中六）則設於將軍澳校舍。 ... 值得一提的是，優才以推動資優教育見稱，校名英文縮寫G.T.，G代表Gifted，即與生俱來的天賦；T是Talent，表示每一個小朋友都有獨特才華，因此提供多元特色課程來培育孩子。"

      From Google Translate: "G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College (hereinafter referred to as G.T.) is a one-stop school under the Direct Subsidy Scheme. The lower primary section (Primary 1 to Primary 3) is located in the Mong Kok campus, the upper primary section (Primary 4 to Primary 6) and the secondary section (Secondary 1 to 6 ) is located at the Tseung Kwan O campus. ... It is worth mentioning that Youcai is well-known for promoting gifted education. The English abbreviation of the school name is G.T., G stands for Gifted, which is innate talent; T stands for Talent, which means that every child has unique talents, so it provides diverse Special courses to nurture children."

    2. Hui, Lok-hang 許珞珩; Cheung, Wai-ting 張瑋婷 (2022-10-24). "升小備戰｜直資優才(楊殷有娣)書院小學部　5層架構推動資優教育" [Preparing for primary school entrance｜Directly gifted G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College 5-tier structure promotes gifted education] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The article notes: "優才（楊殷有娣）書院小學部共有兩個校舍，小一至小三的初小部校舍位於旺角洗衣街，高小與中學部則共用將軍澳調景嶺嶺光街校舍。學校由天才教育協會會長李業富教授於1996年創辦，多年來均實行小班教學及分組學習形式，老師會按學生的能力及長處分成小組，每班6組、每組約4人，不同科目也採用此形式上課。"

      From Google Translate: "The primary school of G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College has two school buildings. The junior school building for primary one to primary three is located on Sai Yee Street, Mong Kok. The upper primary school and the secondary school share the Ling Kwong Street school building, Tiu Keng Leng, Tseung Kwan O. The school was founded in 1996 by Professor Li Yipfu, President of the Gifted Education Association. For many years, it has implemented small class teaching and group learning. Teachers will divide students into groups according to their abilities and strengths. Each class has 6 groups with about 4 people in each group. Different subjects are also included in the school. Take this class."

    3. Hui, Melody (2023-05-09). "優才小學5.13開始報名 校長分享3大面試貼士 小朋友有一個特質最重要" [G.T. Primary School starts registration on May 13. The principal shares 3 interview tips. There is one trait that is most important for children.]. Sunday Kiss (in Chinese). New Media Group [zh]. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The article notes: "直資一條龍小學優才（楊殷有娣）書院小學部每年吸引超過3,000人報讀小一，學校推行獨特的教學模式，及深受家長喜歡小班教學，以每級5班、每班不超過26人，每年提供約130個小一學位，平均27人爭1學位，競爭非常激烈。本周六（13日）為2024／25年度小一報名日期，陳偉傑校長回覆記者查詢時，分享學校的教學特式、面試貼士及模式。優才最吸引家長的其中一個原因是一條龍學校，逾九成學生直升中一，而中學部同時開辦中學文憑試（DSE）及國際預科文憑（IB）雙軌課程，小學學生在無需面對升中選校的壓力下，可充分享受校園學習生活。"

      From Google Translate: "The primary section of the DSS one-stop primary school Youcai (Yang Yin Youdi) College attracts more than 3,000 students to apply for primary one every year. The school implements a unique teaching model and is well received by parents for its small class teaching. There are 5 classes per level and no more than 26 students per class. There are about 130 primary one places available every year, and an average of 27 people compete for one place. The competition is very fierce. This Saturday (13th) is the registration date for Primary One students in 2024/25. When responding to reporters’ inquiries, Principal Chen Weijie shared the school’s teaching style, interview tips and models. One of the reasons why Youcai is most attractive to parents is that it is a one-stop school, with more than 90% of students going directly to Form 1. The secondary school also offers dual-track courses of Diploma of Secondary Education (DSE) and International Baccalaureate Diploma (IB), so primary school students do not have to face Under the pressure of choosing a school for high school, you can fully enjoy campus study life."

    4. Chan, Yik-chiu 陳奕釗. "香港學校｜優才(楊殷有娣)書院壓縮正統課程 特色教學培育優秀學生" [Hong Kong School｜G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College compresses the orthodox curriculum and cultivates outstanding students with unique teaching]. am730 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The article notes: "優才(楊殷有娣)書院特別注重兩文三語、語文能力及溝通技巧。學校不單實行普教中，更讓學生學習法文、韓文、日文、意大利文及西班牙文等第三語言。... 成績方面，學校前年出了3位IB狀元，在全球3,500所IB高中學校中名列第11，香港則排名第3。2023年該校學生IB成績亦不俗：有一個45分狀元、兩個44分榜眼。而本屆69位畢業生中，該校有86%同學在Jupas獲得好成績，能入讀心儀大學及課程，"

      From Google Translate: "G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College pays special attention to biliteracy, trilingualism, language proficiency and communication skills. The school not only provides general education, but also allows students to learn third languages ​​such as French, Korean, Japanese, Italian and Spanish. ... In terms of results, the school produced three IB top scorers the year before last, ranking 11th among 3,500 IB high schools in the world, and Hong Kong ranked third. The IB results of the school's students in 2023 are also good: there is one top scorer with a score of 45, two top scorers Second place with 44 points. Among the 69 graduates this year, 86% of the school’s students obtained good results in Jupas and were able to enter the university and course of their choice."

    5. "Direct Subsidy Scheme Schools". South China Morning Post. 2009-06-13. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The article notes: "Founded in 1997 as a private school and turned DSS in 2002. Merged with Chi Kit School in 2004. Multiple intelligence approach emphasising creativity, self-esteem and social responsibility. Class size: Primary 24; Secondary 24-26. School-based and activity-based curriculum. Over 50 talent classes, run by part-time tutors in small groups, offered twice a week as part of the curriculum. Regular visits to museums and other places of interest. Enhancement for gifted children. Secondary curriculum will lead to HKCEE, HKALE, and other public benchmark tests, IB Diploma may be offered in 2009. Medium of instruction: Primary: Cantonese, with English taught by native speakers. Secondary: English, except Chinese and Chinese history."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College (traditional Chinese: 優才（楊殷有娣）書院; simplified Chinese: 优才（杨殷有娣）书院)) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply, promo, interviews, all obviously based on the same info/source, nothing above show WP:SIRS or notability, they just show marketing at work. Nothing wrong with promotion, but it doesn't equal notability.  // Timothy :: talk  12:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 22 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! 03:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A very decent search of sources by Cunard. I personally have some doubts on the reliability of Sundaykiss (as well as all outlets of New Media Group [zh]), but the other sources from Hong Kong Economic Journal, HK01, am730, and South China Morning Post are fine and all demonstrated notability of the school. I disagree with Timothy's claims that the sources are based on the same information and are simply for promotional purposes. For instance, the SCMP source was published in 2009, the HKEJ source was published in 2022, while the am730 source was published in 2024, so these sources are very unlikely to be based on the same source of information or sharing the same source materials. Besides, the sources are also obviously covering different topics. For instance, the SCMP source was discussing the schools of the Direct Subsidy Scheme, an educational policy in Hong Kong. The HKEJ source is about gifted education in the school. The am730 source is about the curriculum and academic results of the school in recent years. I think these few sources are quite neutral, at least hardly be considered as advertising the school or whatsoever, and obviously covering different aspects of the school. Moreover, the sources provided by Cunard are also only the tip of an iceberg, as there are in fact a lot more older sources. (For instance, a Sing Tao Daily article in 2015 about the school's public examination results[118], a TOPick article in 2018 about the school's reform policies on examinations[119], a Sky Post article in 2018 about the school's extra-curricular activities[120], a HK01 article in 2019 about the school's application and interview details[121], a Tai Kung Pao article in 2019 about the school being the first three schools to introduce the Citizenship and Social Development subject[122], etc.) Therefore, I agree that this article has well passed GNG and fulfilled the requirement of WP:NSCHOOL. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:02, 31 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unique Kings Obi Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel Divine Grace Foundation Secondary School Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of TVB series (1977) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandrikayilaliyunna Chandrakantham Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parkmore Shopping Centre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bland skurkar, helgon och vanligt folk Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plutomania Records Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laal Ishq (Pakistani TV series) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angna (TV series) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dulhan (TV series) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haqeeqat (2019 TV series) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mere Khuda Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tural Yusifov Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elmir Valiyev

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_May_15&oldid=1225053918"