Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 9: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:20, 9 April 2021

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 08	April 10 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Consensus here is to keep. Concerns with promotional tone should be addressed by editing/talk page discussion. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trishneet Arora

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

Most links are dead and the last AfD wasn’t properly addressed, the awards and funding related sections clearly depict Promotional work, the subject is a forbes 30 u 30 holder but that doesn’t make him notable as these awards are very manipulative. Posting it up here for a discussion. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 01:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 01:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 01:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 01:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are multiple WP:RS news articles over a period of 2 years which easily makes the subject notable. This might require cleanup. But AFD is not a venue for cleanup. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 03:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article lists 20 sources. All live, or available as archives ("Most links are dead", c'mon). The nominator has not addressed any of these and is making specious and weak arguments. What source, specifically, is a problem? Why? The coverage is real and significant in many reliable sources. Previous AfDs have been riven with socks and canvassing on both sides, including the nominator of the last one who got blocked during the AfD. The noms claim of "manipulative" is unsupported. -- GreenC 03:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- GreenC, I’ve already addressed it at the talk page, when no one replied i raised it to AfD. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 05:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has reliable reference from global magazines, TV channels includes BBC and Fortune Magazine there were many recent articles on this person which were not listed on Wiki, I added them. He's popular entrepreneur globally and movie maker Sunil Bohra has already announced movie on his life. State of New Mexico has announced 25th August 2017 as "Trishneet Arora Day", a day on his name. I request to remove the deletion nomination. Techloveralwys (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techloveralwys (talk • contribs) 00:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough and WP:RS links are working. There are other awards also apart from Forbes.Sonofstar (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2021 (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 03:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Next Century Foundation

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

Infering from the tags and the talk page this article is a radioactive mess, and I'm not going in here with a csd tag to solve the problem. Listing here for community input and we'll decide the article's fate collectively as one Wiki-Community. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely no credible or reliable secondary coverage of this "foundation," fails WP:GNG easily. I can't tell if this organization is a scam or is a bit player with delusions of grandeur, either way, it has no place here. AP1787 (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the age of the article, a firmer consensus is needed for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: as a hoax. The United States address listed on their website is a residential address that's been listed for sale since 2019. The other "main offices" don't have an actual address given, just a vague geographic area. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 02:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HOAX Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lolwah Al-Khater

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

On a routine check of my deletion log I noticed that this article had been resurrected. While this new version does much to address the original claim of copyright I don't really see how a spokeswoman for the government warrants an article. It may be an issue with the sourcing, or it may be an issue with the overall notability of the article, so I'm listing here for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've just changed this the wrong way, but she's the assistant foreign minister of Qatar. [1] . I think ministers are generally notable. Furius (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've tried to expand this out a bit further on the basis on the available English-language services. Someone with Arabic could probably achieve a bit more. Furius (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well that does help the article, as before she was only a spokesperson. Still a little thin on material, but if we need the article then the material will present itself. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the subject meets WP:POLITICIAN. There are lots of news search results that could be used to support additional content for the article, including some with the name as "Lolwah bint Rashid Al Khater." Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 16:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 16:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 16:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as BennyOnTheLoose said, she meets WP:POLITICIAN.--Imad_J (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NPOL as per having a lot of coverage in different trusted news sources. Namkongville (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2021 (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. Clear consensus to delete. Only keep !vote is misreading WP:NPOL in an overbroad manner. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evangeline Beechler

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

Discovered this article since the other Idaho Democratic Party chair is up for deletion as well. Chairs of political parties at the state level aren't automatically notable under WP:NPOL, and the only coverage I can find on her not in the article is about her failed city council race (for a town where councillors would not be presumed notable), so also fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 00:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 00:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 00:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a part of a coordinated deletion attempt, made minutes after Fred Cornforth was nominated. As I said there, per WP:NPOL, "The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office. As the chair of a major party at the state-wide level, this individual meets WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 00:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not coordinated - I discovered the article when I saw the other article up for AfD and did a before search for her. She never held a position that qualified for WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer T·C 00:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians and judges who have held state/province–wide office, per WP:NPOL. The Idaho Democratic Party is state-wide. She is the chair of it. KidAd • SPEAK 00:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think "state/provincial-wide office" should be interpreted as a position at the state/province itself like governor, secretary of state, or member of a legislative assembly and does not include state-wide positions solely within a party. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 07:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is my understanding as well. Someone who holds political office at a state level has either been elected or appointed and directly serves constituents, being the leader of a state party is just a job. SportingFlyer T·C 11:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

being the leader of a state party is just a job is your personal opinion and not policy. KidAd • SPEAK 05:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By "just a job," I mean it's not an elected position, or a position answerable to constituents, which is really the justification for WP:NPOL - if you've been the member of a legislature, the assumption is you've been written about significantly per GNG at some point. The same is not true regarding members of local political parties. SportingFlyer T·C 15:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete About all that's written about her is in context of losing the election to xyz candidate. Nothing of substance found beside that. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and the referencing outside of routine campaign coverage is not enough for a GNG pass. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES: Leaders of major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) parties are usually deleted unless notability can be demonstrated for other reasons.. An example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Nehring (2nd nomination), which resulted in the deletion of a California GOP Chair. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people who have universally lost in the elections they have run in are not notable. The one exception is very rarely US senate canddiates, not state senate ones. The last Idaho political candidate I created an article on (possibly the last political candidate I created an article on) was Raul Labrador. He was then a US House candidate, a race he won. However since he was a member of the Idaho legislature when he was running for US House, he was without question notable. In this case Beechler was even defeated when she ran for city council, she is just plain not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the US being the "leader" of the state party aparatus is just a job. In some other countries being a leader of the party involves a lot more power and influence, but as things stand in the US leaders of state parties are not default notable. Many of them are notable for other reasons. For one thing it is unclear in the US who is more important, the state party chair, or state members of the party national committee. We do have an article on Michigan's current (at least assuming the article is up to date) Republic National Committeeman, Keith Butler (Michigan politician), but he is notable first and foremost as a religious leader, probably was notable as a member of the Detroit City Council, and has done some other things over the years that justify notability. Him being notable in no way means all 300 people who are major party state heads or national committe memebers (I think each state has 2 national committee memebers at any given time) are default notable. The fact of the matter is, some "major" political parties in the US have very little power, and it is the candidate and office holders from the party, not the appointed officials of the party, who really develop most of the politcies and positions of the party.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I know that my count of how many people would be notable if we made Beechler's postion notable works out to about the membership of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, well that is 400, but close enough. If you look at the article we only have articles on maybe half the current members if that. It is the New Hampshire House of Representatives alone that makes me wonder if our view that every member of every legislature over a first level sub-national division at least in a government that has a federal form (such as US, Germany, Brazil, India, Mexico and I am sure there are others, I think Nigeria would qualify as well) is maybe including way too many politicians. Yet we keep finding articles on people who do not meet our fairly broad politician inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — politicians are notable if they satisfy any criterion from WP:NPOL or have in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources all of which the subject of our discussion doesn’t satisfy.

@KidAd, I consider your rationale for !voting a keep to be extremely unfair to me, whenever I opened the new pages feed your name was always one of the firsts I look out for because I believed your knowledge of WP:NPOL was flawless, well, up until recently, correct me if I’m wrong but haven’t I always reviewed your articles the very day they were created? Have I not reviewed over a dozen articles of yours moderately fast? saving you the anxiety of waiting? To now insinuate that myself & SportingFlyer(who by the way contributes extremely positively to the growth of this collaborative project) are somehow coordinating attacks against you is like i said, extremely unfair to me. Celestina007 (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trishneet Arora (3rd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Century Foundation}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lolwah Al-Khater}}