Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 25	April 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Paulin Basinga

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

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

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

I oppose!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!} 00:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instablog9ja.com

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

I'm not finding anything in a BEFORE search that establishes the notability of this blog/website. All I see online is the blogs own posts on other social media platforms like twitter and X. I also see to bloggish/churnalist-type stories where the writer is guessing or implying who the author of the blog may be. Fails GNG, NCORP and WP:WEBCRIT. Netherzone (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Websites, and Nigeria. Netherzone (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the references I made Realcontribution (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh i see where you're heading to how about if you check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Take_Out

You will notice that they didn't add much references still it wasn't nominated for speedy deletion Realcontribution (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I ran a Google search and wasn't able to find reliable sources that discuss the blog. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lacks in depth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:20, 2 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!} 07:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Fuel Formula

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

The last entry in the now-depopulated Category:The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends episodes (other episodes and story arcs proved to be non-notable and got redirected after prods and AfDs). This one, being the first story arc, is... well, longer than many others but still does not show why it is notable. We have a gigantic plot summary with poor references and my BEFORE fails to find much of use. I suggest redirecting this one as well. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be OR. I can't find much of anything for sourcing, but this much info had to come from somewhere, so I'm lost for how it got so much detail. Regardless, no sourcing is no sourcing and a delete. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maldives–Switzerland relations

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

3 of the 4 sources are primary. The 4th is not indepth. Not much interaction besides diplomatic recognition. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Maldives, and Switzerland. LibStar (talk) 10:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this kind of article is on the edge of what we'd accept for pretty much any minor village that has its own entry here. It's factual, there are sources and, who knows, should something substantial happen then we'll have the backbone for the entry (a cursory search shows that there have been, in fact, discussions on these specific bilateral relations in the past). Superboilles (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's not much here; not enough for a stand-alone article. The French-language news article noted above is not enough to constitute WP:SIGCOV of this topic. Yilloslime (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:44, 19 April 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, Shadow311 (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG, WP:N and WP:SIGCOV. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 18:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. Desertarun (talk) 19:18, 3 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.

Andras de Lisocky

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge Cup semi final

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

Apparently I have to use AfD for this: I think this article should be moved to draftspace as it as the potential to be a good article similar to FA Cup semi-finals. However it is currently incomplete, unreferenced, and is not fit for the mainspace. Mn1548 (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Rugby league, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page has been unreferenced since its creation in 2016. It's more likely that, if sent to draft space, it ends up being G13 deleted in 6 months time anyways. I'd prefer the matter of this get addressed here instead of being draftified and deleted in 6 months. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fair point. Another user has suggested deletion in a previous discussion. My preference is to move article to draft but I'm also not opposed to deletion as article can always be remade at a later date. My main issue with the article currently is not that it is unreferenced but rather is is incomplete in the sense that the list is missing everything from 1898 to 1979. Mn1548 (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Semi finals are not notable enough for a stand-alone article. I PROD'd this a while ago, but it was contested with an WP:OSE argument (i.e. FA Cup semi-finals exists, so this article should too). Even if the article were improved, I'm not convinced it is notable enough to pass WP:LISTN. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this point. While I think this article could be made to the standard of the FA Cup article, the reality is football will always have more coverage than rugby league, so finding enough secondary sources might be problematic for it to pass as a stand alone list. Mn1548 (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Peacock

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

No indication that the titular subject (the diarist/author) or the actual subject (the diary) meet any applicable criteria. In terms of the writer (the author of the diary), writing a personal diary (even in the 18th century) doesn't make one a notable author (WP:AUTHOR). In terms of the book (based on the diary), there is no indication that WP:NBOOK is met. (It appears to be like any other history work based on collated primary sources). WP:GNG is also not met. Frankly, and with every respect, this is another in a long-line of contributions from a Wikipedia editor who should have considered WP:WITHIN. (And perhaps used this source within and in support of other articles. Rather than writing individual articles on every historical person/name they encountered.) I cannot conceive of any appropriate WP:ATDs (redirect/draftify/etc). And so am left with AfD... Guliolopez (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Discussed here [1] and here [2], offering discussion around the time he lived in and the social "things" he kept record of, which really need to be incorporated here so we understand why this person is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ehmm. Is being mentioned, somewhat in passing, in two books (in addition to his own diary) significant coverage? To the extent that WP:NBASIC is met? In "Marriage in Ireland, 1660–1925" (2020), Luddy and O'Dowd (pages 115, 229 and 231) simply use Peacock (alongside at least a half-dozen other diarists and contemporaries) as an example of the [pervasive/male] opinion that the "purpose in securing a wife was to have someone look after the house and children". I do not have access to "A New Anatomy of Ireland: The Irish Protestants, 1649-1770" (2004), but Barnard doesn't appear to deal with Peacock as a topic directly or in particular detail. I'm clearly missing something, but WP:NBASIC expects that primary sources (like the subject's own diary) don't contribute to notability. At all. And any secondary sources would need to be substantial and/or numerous. And the few mentions in those two works don't seem to be either.... Guliolopez (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More for the social context in which he was alive, they fit him into the social history of the time. Oaktree b (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And this [3] and this [4], second one is probably longer. We should at least have BASIC. Oaktree b (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The first of those is the same Barnard work ("A New Anatomy of Ireland"; 2004) that you (and I) have already mentioned. It's not additional/extra coverage. The second of those is also Barnard (in "The Irish Book in English"; 2006; edited by Gillespie & Hadfield). Essentially the same coverage. Condensed into a paragraph or so. We're still at 2 (perhaps 2 and a half) relatively short mentions in works which are (quite substantially) about something else. As per my nom, if Peacock is relevant only in the context of the "social history of the time", then that's how he should be covered. WP:WITHIN the relevant section of History of County Limerick or Agriculture in Ireland or Marriage in Ireland or similar. JUST as those works do. Not as a biographical subject/topic in own right... Guliolopez (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Scolaire (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Keep meets basic, he wrote an important diary in Irish history. Desertarun (talk) 19:16, 3 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.

Securian Canada

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

The subsidiary doesn't seem notable. This page can be a redirect to Securian Financial Group. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 15:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 15:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are separate business entities with separate governance structures from what I can tell and have reference on the Government of Canada website when I was digging around for references. While they share a name, I don't think the connection is that strong beyond that, seems like a worthwhile distinction for people who want to recognize the two entities especially when they have separate reputations (Securian Canada for example has poor reviews vs US which seems to be neutral). Brendanphilp (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And I used to work for them, so I'll avoid this discussion. But yes, most of this is correct, they did insurance for Sears Canada, Hudson's Bay and Capital One (credit insurance and direct marketing items). Used to be the direct marketing division of JC Penney, then it was sold to Aegon, then sold again. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Coverage here [5] and here [6]. Then here [ https://www.dmnews.com/penney-sells-dm-services-to-aegon/]. The article now seems to gloss over most of their history, which was "colourful" to be generous. A proper article on the company here should at least include the JC Penney and Aegon history. I've poked around the Canadian company's website, they're the subsidiary of the US Securian; they also tend to gloss over that for the same reasons I've outlined. They sell insurance using non-traditional methods (again, I'm trying to be diplomatic, but it seems to be about the same quality as when I was there in the JC Penney days), and even then, it was direct marketing/telemarketing, with all the "fun" that comes with that. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I think the JC Penney references are worth including if that's the case. I think maybe the tactics they use should be omitted unless we can reference that somehow like a newspaper article etc. I'll have a poke around again if there's anything I can reference around that but I didn't see anything on the first pass for including as a "controversy" section so to speak. Brendanphilp (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I've dug into it a bit over my morning coffee, it looks like maybe we're confusing two entities. What I can find here is Securian Canada used to be Canadian Premier Life, not JC Penney or Aegon. I did find this: https://www.advisor.ca/industry-news/industry/cpp-owned-wilton-re-buys-transamericas-canadian-business/ which has a same parent company that was purchased but they look like two separate entities in that deal. Maybe still worth referencing. Brendanphilp (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think given the above additional, that it's worthy of its own listing compared to rolled up into US parent. If it makes sense to add the https://www.advisor.ca/industry-news/industry/cpp-owned-wilton-re-buys-transamericas-canadian-business/ article to help add some context about these acquisitions, I think that would be helpful.

I haven't personally been able to find external sources to validate the JC Penney part of the discussion or their "business practices" Oaktree b referenced but if someone finds something, happy to include as well.

Let me know your thoughts! Brendanphilp (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Jews in Mauritania

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

The vast majority of sources about Jews in the context of "Mauritania" are discussing Jews in the Roman provinces of "Mauretania," which encompass the north of present-day Morocco and Algeria, not Mauritania proper. The Jewish people don't appear to have ever had much of a presence in what is now Mauritania. There isn't much material to expand the article with, just minor controversies regarding recent antisemitic statements and sentiments in the country, which I believe shouldn't be what makes up the article. Mooonswimmer 15:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Judaism, and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nominator. Strong delete: Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:V. Not just does this page contains antisemetic, proslavery and psyeudohistoric rhetoric that is potentially harmful, it is poorly sourced with one of the sources pointing to Wikipedia as its source (see here). Without the harmful commentary there's just nothing left for a standalone page. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 15:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly sourced, anti-Semetic and pro-slavery rhetoric which shouldn't even be in the article, not to mention pseudohistory. One of the sources points to Wikipedia as its source (scroll down to the bottom). The Arabo-Berbers of present-day Mauritania in West Africa were immigrants to the that country, from what is now Morocco as per the nom's mention above. Mauritania in West Africa (or North West Africa), should not be confused with the historical province of Mauretania (Northern Africa), where the present-day country in West Africa takes its name, following the Arabo-Berber invasion and settlement in that area–several centuries later, and not in 70 CE. Delete the anti-Semetic and slavery commentary and there would be nothing left in this article, because there is nothing else that supports a stand-alone article. Article fails WP:GNG, WP:RS, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.Tamsier (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There was a Jewish community at Ouadane. I have no idea what rhetoric the other two users are referring to. Srnec (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Made up content of a nn topic. Desertarun (talk) 19:10, 3 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!} 00:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K23LB-D

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Dakota. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A six-year LPTV that only operated for six years in the 2010s does not exactly suggest the existence of significant coverage; another remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" in this topic area pre-2021. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Station was only notable on a local level (if that). Also, Wikipedia is not a directory of TV station that once broadcast. TH1980 (talk) 02:45, 28 April 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 11:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Conway (actor)

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

Unable to locate much beyond fairly trivial mentions. Not seeing in-depth coverage specifically about him and his career. AusLondonder (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. This kind of Wikipedia criterion, we emphasize once more, does not reflect in the slightest the person's professional abilities or anything else related to the subject's life. But Wikipedia is not some complete directory of actors. -The Gnome (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It seems that two of four sources are actually about notable actress Jill Halfpenny in which the subject of this article gets a brief mention as her ex-husband which is grasping at a straw of inhereted notability. Another is only about him doing the Great North Run, which good for him but that is what we'd call routine coverage and not worth an article. The last is a single mention of him playing one role, which is not significant coverage at all. -- D'n'B-t -- 07:11, 28 April 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.

I'm suspicious of new accounts that immediately seek an article's deletion but this is a Soft Delete so the article can be restored should valid concerns arise. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Selby (psychologist)

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

Nominating this article for deletion because it does not meet the notability guidelines. No reliable sources are referenced or can be found online. Alexwiki0496 (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Business, Spirituality, Psychology, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject spectacularly fails WP:GNG despite the effort to inundate the text with pseudo-sources. The fact that the text has been created, curated, and posted up by a kamikaze account, the same one that provided the (perhaps, self-) portrait, is typically a warning sign. A pachyderm from the land of Prom. -The Gnome (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very strange that the article title has the disambiguator "psychologist" but it doesn't mention what qualifications he has in psychology. Could it be that that is because he has none? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 2 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× ☎ 23:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Indian general election in South India

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

Practically a duplicate of the main election article. A general regional election article isn't needed as each state in South India has an article about the general election taking place in the respective state. Regional articles for India would only create more for the sake of more and would be more stats articles and wouldn't provide meaningful context. Articles about the election in each state and territory for the country is enough outside the main election article.

And the creator who contest the speedy deletion tag, states article like UK elections in England is a precenident type article. However, England is not a region in the UK. It is one of the countries part of the UK thus an article for each UK member country makes sense. Regions in England like Midlands, London, etc don't need articles for each general election result as that would be overkill. Articles like these would be overkill as well. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see why this article is needed independently from the main article. Cortador (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are already articles for each state in Category:2024 Indian general election by state or union territory, not sure why this is needed. Reywas92^Talk 00:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary fork of main article given we have 'by state' articles. Number 5 7 21:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article can kept as 2024 Indian general election may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. As this splits data for South India, which would make ease of navigation. As the election proceed there would be increase in length of 2024 Indian general election.

Pagers (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too long is generally considered about 8k words of readable prose. These 2 combined is barely half that. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No need for this page when a page for 2024 elections by different states is on wikipedia Category:2024 Indian general election by state or union territory. This is simply an overkill. RangersRus (talk) 15:03, 3 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 11:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silfade

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

In the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, I get zero results looking up "silfade". Looking up creator SmokingWOLF, I get two (a 4gamer piece and an interview with Famitsu. Using Google Translate, I see the different spelling 'sylphide'. Again, zero results (except results to the unrelated ballet La Sylphide). Fails WP:GNG. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is probably not notable, but please note that such a search really needs to be perfomed in Japanese (シルフェイド) in order to determine whether there are sufficient sources (WP:BEFORE); it's not the case that there are no hits when searching in Japanese. The Famitsu link you gave above calls this the maker's most important work. Dekimasuよ! 15:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Automation-media.com, forest.watch.impress.co.jp IgelRM (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of sig cov via my search. Printed sources in Japanese are unlikely considering the topic. X (talk) 05:39, 28 April 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. Withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Aintabli (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embrace the Gutter

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

In addition to AllMusic, I was able to find a review from Hit Parader, but that's all. HCS.net (archived) appears to be a blog and I doubt it would hold up to scrutiny in terms of reliability. The sales claim might be worth investigating but could've easily been made up for all I know. Maybe other editors will consider AllMusic and Hit Parader to be the bare minimum for a pass, but I think we ought to be just a tad more strict than that. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Florida. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there's another review in Rock Hard behind a paywall [7]. The band is reasonably well known, so I would expect that this album was reviewed in Kerrang! and Metal Hammer in the UK, at least... but of course, I can't vote to keep just because there are "probably" other reviews, until we find them. Richard3120 (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rock Hard certainly helps its case. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Metal.de is another one from Germany [8], Ox-Fanzine is a third, and here is a fourth. Keep. Geschichte (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, that'll do it for sure. Thanks folks! Withdrawn. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:20, 28 April 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.

Ami Dror

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ref 32 [22] - "Shine News" in Shanghai
Ref 33 [23] (Hebrew) - in Calcalist
Ref 30 [24] - in Israel21c

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:

Ref 17 [25] Another interview. Its not independent.
Ref 18 [26] Another interview. Seems he was the bodyguard of Netanyahu.
Ref 19 Non-rs
Ref 20 Non-rs
Ref 21 Unable to view it
Ref 22 [27] Its a passing mention.
Ref 23 Non-rs
Ref 24 [28] It is a profile. It is junk social media. Non-rs.
Ref 25 [29] Essentially a passing mention.
Ref 27 [30] "Ami Dror, said in an interview with CNET" Not independent.
Ref 28 [31] Doesn't mention him.
Ref 29 [32] It is a passing mention and is not significant.
Ref 30 Duplicate of above. PR
Ref 31 [33] A small profile. Not significant.
Ref 32 Described above as PR that fails. It is a WP:SPS source.
Ref 34 Non-rs
Ref 35 [34] That is a press-release. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 36 [35] That is a routine annoucenent of partnership that fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Both for what should be happenning here and also for where I want to invest my scarce wiki minutes, IMO this needs to be about folks determining whether or not suitable (to a customary degree of rigorousness) GNG sources exist, rather than an analysis of my review. For folks making that determination, there's a lot to look through in the article and elsewhere; here's a few places they might want to start: [36] [37] [38] . Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Look pretty WP:GNG solid to me:

Ref 3 [42] - Haaretz
Ref 32 [43] - "Shine News" in Shanghai
Ref 33 [44] (Hebrew) - in Calcalist
Ref 30 [45] - in Israel21c

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

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

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

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

Comment - Added references (notability):

Ref 14 (current) [46] - The Times of Israel
Ref 36 (current) [47] - TechCrunch

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ because there's no indication of further input forthcoming Star Mississippi 01:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John O'Reilly (baseball)

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

Non-notable baseball player, fails WP:GNG. This is all the coverage I have found of him and it would fail WP:BLP1E. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and New Jersey. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some coverage while in college [48], but not really helping notability. He plays in Ireland now, so there is coverage there. [49] and [50] Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:15, 26 April 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 02:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bubble laser

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

Classic example of WP:TOOSOON. Article is based upon a Jan 2024 paper which made a minor splash with popular science blogs and journals. There is no true evidence of notability, this type of article is not what Wikipedia is for. The topic could be returned to in a year if many others copy it. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The WP:GNG is the way we determine notability. Simply that a topic is new does not preclude it from being notable. Regarding the one-year test,

Once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. -- WP:NTEMP

Therefore, I believe there is no need for a year-long wait as you suggest, because the subject meets the GNG. I will substantiate that below:

This topic has recieved significant coverage (full-length articles) in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. These include:

I believe that these sources provide "true evidence of notability" as specified in the GNG. I don't think there are extra subject-specific criteria that would apply to this article. HenryMP02 (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are citing popular science articles not full fledged referred articles. If there were 30 arXiv by others already then that would indicate that the scientific community considered it valid and notable, without that it is classic WP:TOOSOON. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, there is just one scientific article and several pop science retellings of it, and it's too soon, as already mentioned, to establish its notability. Artem.G (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't WP:GNG apply to the topic? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Answered my own question, WP:SUSTAINED should be satisfied here. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 19 April 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:14, 26 April 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.

WEXZ-LD

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

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

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

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

The 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WGBI-LP

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Maine. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" in this topic area in 2008. The only known programming is national services (it was a TBN-owned repeater in its first decade, and was later sold to become a Retro TV affiliate); the only present source is about the former WGBI stations in Scranton, Pennsylvania, not the Maine-based article subject. I suspect significant coverage is unlikely to have ever existed with this one. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:59, 27 April 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.

Somali Inside News

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

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

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

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

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. There is no need to draftify when this is a copy of an extant one. Star Mississippi 02:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kharavela's conquests and invasions

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

Copy of Draft:Kharvela's conquests and invasions (created by now-blocked User:Logical pharaoh). The article is heavily promotional, and uncritically follows the only primary source (Hathigumpha inscription) with some added embellishing. I'd recommend WP:TNT if there was a need for a separate article from Kharavela, but there doesn't seem to be, as the topic is already treated in context at Kharavela#Biography. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article is built on WP:SYNTH, combining up different records of conflicts of Kharvela into a single infobox. Latest sources barely covers the area, fails WP:GNG, and synth is used.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 15:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete Besides problems listed above, the tone of the text is hopelessly bad.It would be better to start from scratch with decent recent sources than merge any of this. Mangoe (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is very poorly written and has major WP:NPOV issues, and in addition to the listed issues, at this point should just be blown up. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Grabup (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be a synth riddled OR microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The agony when reading through the page. Exorbitantly poorly written page. Attribution on this page comes from source by Dr. Amar Singh Mittal, reader in ancient history and culture from Vikram University in Ujjain India and by Sudhakar Chattopadhyaya, professor of Indology at Visvabharati university in Santiniketan India and one published by Utkal University of culture in Bhubaneswar. The creator of the page Copy pasted from these sources and needs to paraphrase. Wikipedia has a page on Kharavela. Maybe better to rewrite with attribution from reliable sources by creating a segment on conquests and invasion inside page Kharavela. RangersRus (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also OR and NPOV issues Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alamgir Hashmi

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

This BLP reads like a CV. None of the listed works or awards strike me as noteworthy or notable, indicating a failure to meet WP:AUTHOR. Additionally, there appears to be a lack of significant coverage in WP:RS, which means the subject also fails basic WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Poetry, United Kingdom, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Appears in The Oxford Companion to Twentieth-Century Poetry in English (1 ed.) (available through Wikimedia Library, excerpted here):
Hashmi, Alamgir (1951– ), was born in Lahore, educated in Pakistan and the United States, and has worked as a professor of English, editor, and broadcaster. His early work ... is characterized by a terse, witty, imagistic style, and reveals a recurring preoccupation with language, time, and place. The poet's peripatetic career in America, Europe, and Pakistan is reflected in the concerns of his subsequent collections, .... As Hashmi has developed, there has been a broadening of human sympathies and an emerging political awareness which have modified the virtuosity and self-absorption of some of his earliest writing. His most recent publications are ....

I would vote Keep by WP:GNG if a similar source was found. FYI, I removed the author bio paragraph that was completely uncited and appears to have been included verbatim from the author's personal website. This may be a copyright concern. Suriname0 (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that there is some coverage available. However, the concern lies in the insufficient extent of coverage to meet the WP:SIGCOV. The subject is listed on Oxford Reference, just because some of their work must have been hosted by Oxford University Press but I'm sure that won't make him WP:IHN. -—Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unusually for a poet, there is plenty of in-depth coverage of him and his work to be found [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] —David Eppstein (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article needs work, there are tons of citations out there proving this poet meets notability guidelines, including in-depth analysis of the poet's works in various literary journals accessible through the Wikipedia Library.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the sources identified by David Eppstein. Suriname0 (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per David Eppstein, plenty of coverage about his poetry, a notable subject. The editorships and awards also look pretty significant to me in a couple of cases (but need to be substantiated by sources). Qflib (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David Eppstein, plenty of sources, notable Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:55, 2 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 deleted‎ by Canterbury Tail (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)". The nominator had already quickly withdrawn in deference to a pre-existing speedy tag, anyway. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fosh Airways

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

The article is clearly unnotable and should instead merely be a section on the page for Max Fosh. Gaismagorm (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Travel and tourism. Gaismagorm (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

whoops, withdrawn cause I just now noticed that it was already nominated for speedy deletion Gaismagorm (talk) 13:22, 26 April 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× ☎ 23:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Coney

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

Subject is a case of WP:BIO1E as a beauty pageant contestant, with a lack of WP:GNG level coverage. Let'srun (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and California. Let'srun (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found name mentions and promo, nothing meeting WP:SIRS. // Timothy :: talk 04:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Goes nowhere near to satisfying WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. Contributor892z (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines WP:GNG Waqar💬 15:48, 3 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.

Musharraf Ali Farooqi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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× ☎ 23:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Maps

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

no RS outside of IndGoV sources Sohom (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Websites, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 15:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, No sources or coverage found of the subject. Only primary sources have been located, which fail to establish the notability required for a standalone article. Grabup (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary or independent sources. Fails notability guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:43, 2 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.

East Asian identity

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

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

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

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

The 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. We cannot redirect to an article that does not exist, but if one on the magazine is created, please ping me and I can restore the history under a redirect. Star Mississippi 02:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maan Abu Taleb

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

~~Took a look at this article at the suggestion of another editor who suggested a delete nom. After reviewing it, I'm gonna agree with him.~~ The only sources I can find of this guy are, a Vice interview (not enough) and coverage of his magazine (sexual misconduct allegations, mostly) The magazine he founded, Ma3azef, may have a case for notability despite being a redlink, but this is not WP:INHERITED (and additionally, fails WP:AUTHOR 3.). Then there is the matter of his book, the english translation of the book seems to have gotten no coverage whatsoever and frankly, the fact that it was only longlisted for a rather niche prize (the Banipal, which is awarded to english translations of Arabic books), seems to only strengthen the case here. Given that this article has had this sourcing issue for at least four years, it seems to suggest that nobody else can find sources either. Hence, this likely fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR/WP:NEDITOR. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Jordan, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Numerous and diverse secondary sources emerge on a Google search. The English translation of his first novel was published by an academic press, and it appears he's active in the Arabic diaspora. I assess that the subject is notable and the page is marked as stub quality for lack of volunteer editors contributing to expand it. I've done some work and will add more soon. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Allan Nonymous, when you took a look at the article - did you look at the subject's Wikidata item, which was created back in 2019. In particular, on 13 December 2020 a contributor added the Google Knowledge Graph ID which has a wide amount of interesting information available at a click and waiting for further editing of the page by future volunteer editors (such as myself). Basing your judgment on the content of a stub page is a weak argument, and I write this as a Good Faith editor with a lot of work in Wikidata under my belt. In evaluating a page to nominate as AfD's, this would be my advice. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Deborahjay that article is made of paper, the numerous sources are only 2, I can't believe it when my Noam Bettan article had 22 sources. Furthermore, the first is an autobiography of a blog, if the article does not make it relevant, it lacks too much content for it to remain here, it seems like a mirror article, that article could very well be on another free website where it does not matter. ask for too much information like in FANDOM. Acartonadooopo (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Sock comment struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Acartonadooopo, you fail to show understanding of Wikipedia guidelines relevant to new page creators: notability, biographies of living people, reliable sources, stub article. Your 22 sources for the Noam Bettan page were from Israeli popular music platforms and websites, not mainstream media. I found them inadequate and agreed with the Deletion recommendation. This page you've proposed for deletion is a stub for notable person, an author with listings in the US Library of Congress and the National Library of Israel (and Canada, Japan and others, besides his ID included in the Virtual International Authority File. This is evinced by his Wikidata item. Considering how little experience you have in the EN WP, it's not too soon for you to learn the consensus on best practices of this collaborative effort before you criticize from your own point of view. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata shoudn't be used for notability here, it's user created, so just any old person can go create a profile there. It's really only useful to us for cross-platform linking of topics, it has its own set of standards that don't apply here either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think we have notability. I can't find book reviews and this is the only RS [58], but it's more of an interview. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maybe a redirect to the red-linked magazine he founded, the Ma3azef, might work. There's some coverage around that. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, that's why I mentioned it as an option given that Ma3azef is probably notable. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it has come to my attention that the user here who suggested the nom was a sock. I have struck the portion of the comment referring to him, but I think the nom is still sound here (despite the rather unsavory way this was brought to my attention).

Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 12:57, 26 April 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.

Tappytoon

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

This article about a Web fails Wikipedia:Notability (Web); Because it did not meet the conditions for notability. The company's history, adaptation, awards and nomination, etc. were not introduced. Also, there are no articles that can attract attention. It should be deleted or redirected to the list of webtoon sites in Korea. Hkm5420 (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Webcomics and South Korea. Hkm5420 (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Lots of reliable sources have covered TappyToon in their online publications. See The Escapist, Heidi MacDonald's The Beat, BusinessKorea (not personally familiar with it tho), Yahoo, plus release listings like The Korea Herald and The Mary Sue. Are there problems with the sources available here? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 19 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) 12:52, 26 April 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, Shadow311 (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Haven’t done a BEFORE check yet, but every source shared by Maplestrip other than the Escapist is a reprinted press release Mach61 13:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. I recognize the desire for one following two nominations within a year, but with barely any input after two relists, I don't see what is gained from a 3rd. Star Mississippi 01:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chun Ge

AfDs for this article:

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

I think this is a non-existent term and there are not many related reference materials in the article. Meets the criteria of Delete policy 6. Neologisms, it is recommended to delete. SU YIQI (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Popular culture, Internet, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chun Ge participants: Piotrus (talk · contribs), Mx. Granger (talk · contribs), Harrz (talk · contribs), and The person who loves reading (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suggested this to be deleted a few months back, saying sourcing is poor and article is confusing. Folks said 'sources exist in Chinese', without citing any or improving the article. At best I think we should move it to a draftspace or userspace if someone wants to work on this; otherwise, deleting this is no big loss, given how poorly written this is - it can be recreated from scratch if someone cares, with proper sources (WP:TNT) later. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think anything has really changed since the last nomination. There's extensive sourcing at zh:春哥 which seems to be enough to meet GNG. As I said last time, the article could certainly use work, but it's an okay starting point and doesn't need TNT. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 19 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) 12:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nickname that turned into an Internet meme or kuso meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline as demonstrated by the numerous sources at zh:春哥 such as 1, 2, 3, and 4. The article has room for improvement, but like Mx. Granger, I also think it is a good start and don't think TNT applies. The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Cunard (talk) 11:26, 3 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. Star Mississippi 01:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nette Framework

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability, no independent sources, tagged since 2018. Greenman (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 19 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) 12:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence this is a notable framework. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Dhivehi Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

Delete per @Sohom Datta and @Geschichte.

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

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

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Paragominas Futebol Clube. Star Mississippi 01:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Estádio Arena do Município Verde

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

Fails WP:GNG, notability is not inherited per WP:NARENA and WP:NBUILDING. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Brazil. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paragominas Futebol Clube. Svartner (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paragominas Futebol Clube. Giant Snowman 09:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does pass GNG, as you'd expect from a 10.000 seat stadium, but the article needs to be improved. See Portuguese page and [59] [60] [61] SportingFlyer T·C 20:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 19 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) 12:36, 26 April 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!} 06:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Meyer (producer)

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

Practically unsourced since creation. No evidence of notability. Previously deleted and salted as Swayd. Also including Lunar Sound, the studio he operated, which is similarly unreferenced. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable producer, a web search brings up no coverage whatsoever and the article reads like a résumé. InDimensional (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP and WP:RS. There are zero sources in the article, a violation of BLP. We usually delete articles about producers, who are run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The article has been updated and refined with multiple sources added. Richard Meyer is a notable producer in Switzerland, and it is important for non French-speaking people in Europe to be able to read about him as his company, Lunar Sound, is an active recording studio. LissyBaldwin (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last.fm, Discogs, Apple Music and Dailymotion are not the best sources. InDimensional (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about physical newspaper articles? Unfortunately their archives haven't been made digitally available to the public, but I can cite the sources. LissyBaldwin (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate the additions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of content was added but no new in-depth coverage I can see other than this from China Daily, but I don't think using a Chinese source of questionable reliability/indendence to establish notability of a Swiss producer is wise. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about physical newspaper articles? Unfortunately their archives haven't been made digitally available to the public, but I can cite the sources. LissyBaldwin (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 12:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LissyBaldwin: it would be helpful if you could detail those newspaper sources here as someone might have access to them and could evaluate them, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! There's an article from Le Matin dated October 7, 2006 and another from that same newspaper dated October 14, 2007. I know that there were others but couldn't tell you the dates. All Swiss publications, all in French. LissyBaldwin (talk) 10:58, 2 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× ☎ 23:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vilma Abrahamsson

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Sweden. Joeykai (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 16:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet GNG or SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Any coverage I find looking in the local paper is just match reports or very short statements on her injuries. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SPORTCRIT. AlexandraAVX (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing GNG, SPORTCRIT, NBIO, etc. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:46, 2 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.

Liverpool Privateers

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Canada. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The team easily passes GNG due to substantial news coverage in Nova Scotia and the Maritimes. Here are a few of the more recent news on the team. [62][63][64][65][66] I question whether the nominator completed WP:BEFORE on this nomination. I'm baffled what is meant by "Unlikely to become notable, if the team is defunct". As per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, the article might be poorly sourced in its current state, but can easily be improved. Flibirigit (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed complete a before search. I found numerous news articles regarding the move of the team, all based on press releases. I found routine coverage, e.g. of matches. I found articles based on what a spokesperson for the team said, without WP:SECONDARY analysis. I found nothing that was WP:INDEPTH, WP:SECONDARY, WP:INDEPENDENT to satisfy GNG. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Road signs in Brunei

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Belgian Pro League broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Belgium. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the premise of the AfD. Also, what a weird list! Hardly any core and almost everything out of scope. Also by SPINOFF/SPINOUT (information governance) logic, the article doesn't fly. gidonb (talk) 15:16, 27 April 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.

List of Czech First League broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, not a single source. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

List of Swiss Super League broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

List of Indian Super League broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are archived pages of primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

List of Nemzeti Bajnokság I broadcasters

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brendan Lopes

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

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

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

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

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

Sunarso

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

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

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

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

Hiljson Mandela

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

The subject is not notable. The award "Cesarica" is not at all notable to value the importance of the subject. Upon WP:BEFORE, I could find 3 articles about him, which doesn't show notability. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 08:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, and Croatia. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 08:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy enough to find widespread Croatian mainstream media coverage of this person - HRT had them on one of their music shows in 2021[67], RTL interviewed him in 2022[68] and later hired him for their 'Masked Singer' show in 2023[69], and Nova TV covered his interview in 2023[70]. There's a nationwide renown and it's a topic that might conceivably interest a few average English readers. Ultimately, if we kept Barbara Radulović back in the day, we might as well keep this. --Joy (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely strongly disagree. I second everything Joy mentioned! He is one of the most successful young Croatian musicians/rappers. With 2 Porin nominations[71][72], coverage by the 3 biggest Croatian TV channels (including interviews and participating as one of the celebrity contestants in Masked Singer) + millions of YouTube views and a lot more (I get that you couldn't find it tho, but there's def a lot of sources), I would say he is undoubtedly notable. I'm willing to expand the article soon. CroatiaElects (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily passes GNG in Croatian sources. SportingFlyer T·C 22:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chaitanya Kanhai

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

Non-notable. Doesn't meet WP:ENT yet. Can go for soft-deletion. Sources are poor. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 08:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 08:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, WP:GNG, and WP:MILL. Hr has not have much of a career to show so far. There is no allegation of notability. Assistant directors and music video makers are run of the mill. Come on, folks. In 2024 everyone knows we have very minima standards, and this is below that. Bearian (talk) 12:53, 2 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 SM Entertainment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Million Market

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. No primary sources, no reliable sources. There is one article about this label signing a part with SM Entertainment, but that alone doesn't subject to notability. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 08:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 08:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SM Entertainment. My searches turned out nothing worthy of independent WP:SIGCOV. See also Talk:Million Market. --Викидим (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SM Entertainment. ditto above. No sign of independent notability. Evaders99 (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:32, 26 April 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!} 08:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA European Qualifiers broadcasting rights

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Contextes are there to claim 'channel x' brought out the right to coverages in 'country x', not to assert notability. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Europe. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of UEFA Europa League broadcasters

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Contextes are there to claim 'channel x' brought out the right to coverages in 'country x', not to assert notability. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Europe. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Not a TV guide. Govvy (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Additional information has been added that may help determine notability.--Claudio Fernag (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worthy in an article itself but we don't need a broadcasting list so you can watch in whoever country. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:46, 3 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!} 08:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of UEFA Europa Conference League broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Contextes are there to claim 'channel x' brought out the right to coverages in 'country x', not to assert notability. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Europe. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 27 April 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!} 08:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of UEFA Super Cup broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Contextes are there to claim 'channel x' brought out the right to coverages in 'country x', not to assert notability. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Europe. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 27 April 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!} 08:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Single visit dentistry

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

The term exists, but most uses of it seem to be promotional, many tied to the mentioned CEREC company. Unsure if this term alone meets WP:GNG and especially a need for independent sourcing. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Medicine. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tellingly, there is no source provided for the article's claim that "traditionally these procedures take upwards of two appointments," as it proceeds with marketing claims of CEREC supporting the creation of multiple dental restorations through rapid 3-D scans. As noted by Sammi Brie, virtually every online use of the term appears on a dentistry practice advertising that their office has the CEREC equipment, reinforcing a lack of notability. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 08:34, 29 April 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!} 08:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Contextes are there to claim 'channel x' brought out the right to voerages in 'country x', not to assert notability. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Algeria. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 27 April 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!} 07:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bundesliga broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. No context to assert notability either. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Germany. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 12:50, 1 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.

List of La Liga broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. No context to assert notability either. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Spain. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Not a tv guide.. Govvy (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant information and sources have been added that give it notability.[73], [74], [75]--Claudio Fernag (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worthy in an article itself but we don't need a broadcasting list so you can watch in whoever country. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sourcing found by Claudio Fernag. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTCRUFT also applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder, that page is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant and comprehensive information with references and sources.Puente aereo (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Any editor is free to create a Redirect from this page title. I seem to get taken to DRV when I close discussions like this to Redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Serie A broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. No context to assert notability. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Italy. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: At the similar AfD for Copa Sudamericana broadcasters, you !voted Redirect rather than Delete. Do you think a redirect isn't a viable alternative to deletion in this case? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opposition to a redirect. Giant Snowman 13:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Serie A#Television rights (a section which could be renamed to "Media coverage"). Absent media coverage about the list as a topic, I agree that I don't think this is a list within Wikipedia's scope that is therefore worth preserving per WP:NOT, but the topic does merit some encyclopedic coverage in the context of Serie A, and it is a reasonable redirect as an alternative to deletion. I do not think there is anything worth merging, though preserving the page history allows an interested editor to do so if they disagree. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not a TV guide. Govvy (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no objection to a cheap consensus redirect to Serie A#Television rights, but don't find it useful. // Timothy :: talk 07:32, 2 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!} 07:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Süper Lig broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, the only source are nothing but news announcement and does not assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Turkey. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NLIST, fails NOTTVGUIDE, fails CLN. Listcruft. // Timothy :: talk 12:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not a TV guide. Govvy (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, and NOTTVGUIDE Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:47, 2 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!} 07:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shreya Verma

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

Case of BLP1E. Fails WP:NPOL and GNG as BLP is contesting in the 2024 Indian general election and has not been elected to any office positions yet. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't know how these people create an article about a politician without reading Guidelines. Clearly fails WP:NPOL. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL, same like previous AFDs Kompella Madhavi Latha, Neeraj Tripathi. No in-depth coverage of the Subject and not yet elected as MP or MLA to pass WP:NPOL, If she wins the election and elected as a MP then he will automatically pass WP:NPOL. Grabup (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not yet won already — but this makes no claim that the subject has preexisting notability for any other reason. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if she wins, but just standing as a candidate is not in and of itself grounds for an article now. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Not notable enough. Can't find much about her on Google. Fails WP:NPOL Rustypenguin (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing GNG and NPOL Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:47, 2 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.

Independent Investment Advisors

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. All sources provided in article are either linked to the subject (1, 5-9) or passing mentions (2-4).

User is likely COI, created a similar article in draftspace at Draft:Independent Investment Advisors which was rejected three times before they ultimately created a mainspace article directly by moving from userspace. Triptothecottage (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, and Oregon. Triptothecottage (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Credibly (company)

AfDs for this article:

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

I guess this has been recreated—wasn't quite sure what had happened here initially, but as I was planning on commenting on the previous AFD I guess I may as well nom it. I couldn't find anything useful in my own search. Editing history of the creator also seems a bit odd but I'm not too familiar with that kind of thing. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Michigan. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale at the previous AFD. The only indepth sourcing is not from reliable sources. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Created the article as good faith. I believe the subject passes GNG on the basis of independent references. JSS24 (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith is irrelevant. To a first approximation all articles, no matter how lacking in notability they may be, are created in good faith. Athel cb (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not all articles, heh. It's possible the range p-block on the IP is just collateral though. I mean, I wouldn't bet money on it but it's possible. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Evidences are available to prove subject's Notability Guidelines. And passes GNG. 2409:40D0:10CE:A5F:1C4F:A30E:B72D:E5DA (talk) 05:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This user is currently blocked." What more is there to say? Delete. Athel cb (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore references need to meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Nothing I can find meets the criteria, mostly just PR and company announcements and profiles, all generated either by the company or regurgitating company provided/generated information, nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of significant coverage from reliable sources other than routine coverage. Air on White (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. —Ganesha811 (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Independent Division of Henan Provincial Military District

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

I can't claim to be an expert in this area, but I was unable to find sources to confirm notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking for this unit brings up nothing but Wikipedia articles, bot-written articles that copy it, and some other wiki articles. There's no Chinese-language article either. This doesn't seem to be noticeable independently from the PLA.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These Chinese divisions certainly need a rewrite, but it does appear to be covered on Chinese Wikipedia, with sourcing. In general, I think divisions are large and significant enough to be notable and generally have sufficient coverage (in this case, if you speak Chinese!). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no corresponding Chinese article, and a plain google search of "河南省军区独立第2师" yielded mainly WP mirrors. Unreferenced so I can't support it meeting GNG. LibStar (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:55, 26 April 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.

Leopoldo Soto Norambuena

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

Article is based entirely on work by the subject and has no evidence of third-party notability. Almost identical to article previously speedy deleted and salted as Leopoldo Soto * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, and Chile. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I am inclined to think they may be notable, but just across the line. --Bedivere (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Improve (an unusual vote). Based upon just his publication record he does not qualify (he publishes as Leopoldo Soto), and I could not verify his appointments listed in http://pppp.cl/contenido/investigador.php?varbajada=1. However, with a bit more digging I found https://www.cchen.cl/?p=7217&highlight=Leopol which has more notable information, but I am using Google to translate from Spanish. I think some more digging (and possibly improvement) is needed first by a native Spanish speaker. (Android visual editor messing up?) Ldm1954 (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:53, 26 April 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I agree with the nom's arguments. There is a lack of independent sources that would meet WP:ANYBIO. If we're going with GNG, I'd vote delete. However, I'm a bit more hesistant in regards to this article on a WP:NPROF basis. The most recent deleted revision of the salted page mentions that they are a Fellow for the Institute of Physics. This is literally wikilinked as an example of meeting criteria #3. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, which is why I voted Improve which to me is a version of Keep. I find it very strange that the page was edited to remove key information that is an automatic #C3. While these were unsourced, removing them I consider to be very harsh. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
N.B., I just reinstated with sources the key awards that were removed. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, revised vote. After adding a few sources and restoring his FInstP he qualifies under #C3. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Brandt

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable musician. Has multiple sources but they are either bylined to him or is an interview. Has a big laundry list of awards but none are major. Claims lots of #1 singles but they're are not on the countries national chart. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. A search found nothing better. (last afd was for a different Tommy Brandt) duffbeerforme (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Christianity, Florida, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Contains poorly referenced sources. Subject may be notable but does not show notability. Mevoelo (talk)
Weak delete: Nothing can be verified. He could possibly be notable if he really has all those TV appearances. If someone can find citations, I would change my vote.Yolandagonzales (talk) 09:30, 27 April 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 01:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A-Plus (rapper)

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Just because we have several articles about music produced by him does not make him notable, I find that he is not notable as a musician or a producer. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I haven't looked closely yet as to whether his article deserves to stay, but it seems to me a redirect to Souls of Mischief might be a better option than outright deletion... yes, I know he is part of Hieroglyphics (group) as well and therefore WP:XY may be considered here, but Hieroglyphics is all of Souls of Michief plus four other people, so he's still a part of Hieroglyphics as a member of Souls of Mischief. Richard3120 (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He clearly passes WP:NMUSIC#C6 if he's part of two notable production groups. That doesn't mean we have to have a standalone article on him, just noting a discrepancy in the nom statement. Mach61 20:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to Souls of Mischief as he does have some individual reliable sources coverage such as an AllMusic staff bio here and a review of one of his 3 solo albums here, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Other than the 2 sources provided by above editor, there are not enough reliable coverage and 2 of the sources are interviews.Bradelykooper (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. None of the sources appear to be reliable, but a search of his name would go to the band's article, a compromise that we do sometimes. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: AllMusic is a reliable source as per [[76]] and the bio and album review are not interviews as someone else claimed, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: the only problem is that AllMusic isn’t being used as a reference and all 3 of the references are interviews. Of those only 1 is about A-Plus. Nagol0929 (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have added the AllMusic sources as references, Atlantic306 (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a ton of sourcing (yes, from reliable sources) available on this guy in Google News and Books searches, over a period of decades. It's true that most of them are brief mentions, but with all of the info available, surely the article could be built out and sourced better than it is now. I had to get a little creative in looking for sources since "A plus" is such a generic term, but combining his name with "Hieroglyphics" or "Souls of Mischief" yields many good results. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fred Zepelin may you link said results? Mach61 01:40, 25 April 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, Daniel (talk) 05:11, 26 April 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.

Anurag Sinha

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

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

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

@CNMall41

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

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

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

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

Hello @CNMall41

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are just some of the articles that are published where the actor is talked and discussed in a positive prominent light and not merely in mentionary terms. This merely are a few articles from only one of the indian publications, Times of India, TOI Entertainment.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/kill-terrorism-not-the-terroristshubash/articleshow/2849557.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/anurag-in-black-and-white/articleshow/2917175.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/genres-dont-matter-says-anurag/articleshow/3184943.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/i-think-i-can-handle-the-curiosityanurag/articleshow/2864389.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/actor-anurag-sinha-to-marry-on-nov-19/articleshow/5156245.cms?_gl

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

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/subhash-ghai-feels-inspired/articleshow/3973118.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/star-plus-p-o-w-bandi-yuddh-ke-gets-3-new-faces/articleshow/56625506.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/anil-is-jealous/articleshow/2787866.cms?_gl

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/another-honour-for-subhash-ghai/articleshow/3900541.cms?_gl

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

My perspective - The India media is suffering with the malady of copying and publishing information from one source to another and is suffocating genuine talents and films with the issue of paid marketing and publicity. If Wikipedia doesn’t provide a platform like its own of credible acknowledgement to authentic artists/talents, soon must find it surfeit with articles on Arts & Entertainment , that are already influenced and published under bias and discreet funding from production houses. Why are we not calling out the ones overtly known ? As for this article, this feels like a pitiful hassling over an unjust removal of a credible and relevant indian talent.

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

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

Delete: I went through all the sources cited in the article. Can't find any that satisfy reliability + independence + significant coverage. Most of the sources are about the movies the subject played a role in, with trivial mentions of him interspersed. I doubt the notability of the movies too, These are sponsored stories [77][78]. This is an interview. So not WP:IS. Alternative Film Festival best actor is not a significant award or honor. The article is just deliberate and malicious refbombing. — hako9 (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kelly Metzger

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

This is a non notable voice actor. The article doesn't even meet WP:THREE. The only source I see is for a convention that sources one of her works.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Theatre, Comics and animation, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following more topics: Anime and manga, and Video games. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Delete: Could find no sources to establish notability. Esw01407 (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, the notability test for actors and actresses is not automatically passed just by listing roles, and requires the provision of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about her and her roles, but none is present here and I've had about as much luck as the above commenters at finding anything better. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails per WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG, and WP:THREE. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject specific guideline for voice actors has been met. WP:NACTOR states: The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3045630/ She played one of the three Power Puff girls in all 52 episodes of Powerpuff Girls Z. She played Nya in Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu for 100 episodes. Wikipedia:Notability clearly states "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)". You don't have to do both. Also those linking to WP:THREE, kindly ready the personal essay you are linking to, it states don't list more than three sources in an AFD or no one will bother looking them over. Dream Focus 12:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject played a significant role in all episodes of one notable work (PPGZ), voiced a primary character in the English version of all episodes of Tara Duncan (TV series), and played one character over 200 times in various iterations of Ninjago. By my reading, this is a clear pass of NACTOR, even for a voice or translation actor. User:Dream Focus and I often disagree, but we agree here WP:THREE is an essay with no relevance to this discussion, and the subject meets the SNG with lots of significant (even repeating) roles in their field. It's a BLP, so I'd like reliable sources about the person, but WP:ENT is met, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement over WP:NACTOR is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She's had several significant roles but there is no coverage. Bold in following quotes is added for emphasis WP:Notability (people) (which includes WP:NACTOR) states: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. WP:Notability states : Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia Even WP:NACTOR only says may be considered notable. Schazjmd (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that this article may be deleted, since "adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found". I added cite needed tags to request WP:RSs, but another editor deleted them, adding more WP:OR instead. If WP:OR is added again, such as the unreferenced assertion that she voiced x number of episodes, User:Schazjmd, it will convince me that the article ought to be deleted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not original research. WP:OR, under primary, states:

3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

So listing information listed in the credits of the primary source, is acceptable. So she voiced Buttercup, one of the three powerpuff girls in the show Powerpuff Girls Z, so was of course credited as being in every single episode. There was not a single episode that didn't have all three girls in it. And if you want to know what year the show was on, you can just click the link to the article for it, or if you want it in this article for some reason, you can just copy it from the primary source without problems. You don't need a secondary source for something no primary source would have any possible reason to lie about. Dream Focus 13:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are interpreting WP:OR too narrowly. You are not offering a listing by the publisher of all the episodes showing her name, you are asking the reader to synthesize each individual episode's credits (not easily accessible) to note that her name is listed, and then count up the number of such episodes. Again, if this sort of fancruft is re-added to the article without a WP:RS, it will emphasize the paucity of coverage for this person. Is there really not a single review mentioning any of her performances? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 01:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acharya Satish Awasthi

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

So this is currently at RfD on the Simple English Wikipedia, and likewise to the nominator there, I don't think the coverage is enough for notability. Cleo Cooper (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astrology and Uttar Pradesh. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion on simplewiki. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Creator has now moved to draftspace.
Delete: Cannot find any significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Fails WP:BASIC Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:51, 26 April 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 Ricaurte family. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel París Ricaurte

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

Guy has a messy and (and coincidentally, also unsourced) wikipedia article on spanish wikipedia, which I cut. Not really enough sources to establish anything beyond the fact that this guy exists, which is, unfortunately, not enough for WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Colombia, and Venezuela. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:ATD can be a redirect to Ricaurte family. Curbon7 (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good one, I missed that, although that article has notability issues as well. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 3 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 sourcing and claims are insufficient Star Mississippi 03:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Roberge

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

Biography with no evidence of notability, but that has persisted for quite a while. Sadads (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough coverage to meet film notability, this [79] and a review [80] on a site I don't see listed as a RS over at Project Film [81]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Canada, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Director of at least 2 apparently notable films that received coverage, so that WP:DIRECTOR is met in my view. Trimming the page seems necessary, though. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd truly like to know which of the WP:DIRECTOR criteria are met: (A) an important figure...widely cited by peers or successors Nope. (B) originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique None that we're aware of. (C) created -or played a major role in co-creating- a significant or well-known work There are 2 films directed by Roberge that have Wikipedia pages of their own but that does not mean that their director is worthy of an article himself. First of all, we need independent notability, and, segundo, the films might be Wikinotable but they are certainly not some "significant" work. And (D) [his] work has become a significant monument, been part of a significant exhibition, won significant critical attention, or been represented within permanent collections No, no, no, and no. -The Gnome (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 -- I don't see any of those criteria being met in my current reading of the article, Sadads (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mushy Yank. Marokwitz (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, Marokwitz, above response to Mushy Yank that the criterion invoked clearly and explicitly does not hold. -The Gnome (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG and is not saved by WP:ARTIST. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything. Nor is it a collection of indiscriminate information. Completists, and I am one, please look elsewhere! -The Gnome (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'm wondering if this article is getting edited with a bot or an outside script rather than by a person doing normal edits. Please see the major contributor's talk page.~~ I am wondering why he continues to add information, mark every edit as "minor" despite several warnings. ~~This suggests script driven editing.~~ Graywalls (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I totally agree with Mushy Yank. Although an underground producer and filmmaker - he is still well known in the film industry. See e.g. his IMDB profile. GidiD (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB can often be used as a source of information but not as proof of notability. IMDB offers, just like Wikipedia, audience-created content. What Wikipedia demands are not reputations but numerous, significant, independent, third-partysources. You are totally welcome to locate and post them up and make people change their minds. -The Gnome (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:IMDB is WP:UGC and generally trash and unacceptable as a reference. Graywalls (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are both right. Mea Culpa. GidiD (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Care to perhaps revisit, then, your above suggestion, GidiD? -The Gnome (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Watch this list, Please, if there is a good intention, a prior, help me integrate then into the article. מתיאל (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Mars Roberge is an emerging voice and the l.a underground filmmaking scene, and also won some prizes and gained some good reviews and recognition Fabiorahamim (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any sources you can provide to support the above? -The Gnome (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See External links מתיאל (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]

And also the two articles about his film with stating prizes and nominations. מתיאל (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But there's still nothing about the director himself! And the "external links" section is irrelevant to notability. -The Gnome (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A list of further reliable sources will be uploaded to the talk page of the article tomorrow. If people will google him (And other artists) and also see the interview with him on Youtube and put the energy into that, instead of rushing to delete, Wikipedia will be a much better place. מתיאל (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]

Look here below. מתיאל (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per Graywalls and The Gnome Priscilla256 (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I am shocked by the enthusiasm of some participants to delete an article about a real film director. Erasing artists is something typical of dictatorships, 1950s style. Have you seen his movies? Is a director who makes kitsch films and is more successful worthy of value? The high-quality and less popular director has greater historical importance and that's what Wikipedia is for. Not for censorship or promoting kitschy pop. Nor does it matter the identity of the author of the entry and what his editing style is. Only relevant arguments. There are criteria for evaluating works of art and his films certainly meet them. For a better world, we need to create a community that promotes quality culture and deals with quality criteria. A community that acts for noble motives only! מתיאל (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]

I find your comments sad and insulting. I reject your accusation of "enthusiasm" as a motivator for my opinion. This verges on a personal insult, because it is presented in tandem with your insinuations about me or others with whose suggestions you do not agree as supporters of "dictatorships." I'd greatly appreciate if you retract these personal attacks and concentrate on the discussion about the issues at hand.

As to your claim that this "director has greater historical importance and that's what Wikipedia is for", I'm sorry but that is just your personal opinion. Wikipedia is not here to assign historical importance on the basis of personal opinions. I could actually agree with you about the person's importance! But personal opinions about notability do not matter in the slightest in Wikipedia. (I'm sure you're aware of this.) We need sources. Wikipedia clearly and explicitly does not aspire to be a "complete" encyclopaedia, such as Britannica, or other such. Wikipedia is written by the public, essentially, on the basis not of contributors' personal opinions or expertise but on the basis of third-party, independent, significant sources. "Noble motives" are what has brought all of us here to contribute but they're not the decider on notability. -The Gnome (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't meant to offend anyone. I suggest that the people who are trying to delete him, will watch his movies before they decide. There are critics, and bloggers who are hardcore movie fans who liked his movies and wrote positive and detailed reviews about them, out of love for cinema and this is a sufficient indication. מתיאל (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]

Another thing, when people (not you) write nasty things to me on my page and act like bullies and work to remove an article about an artist who has proof of his successes, how should that be interpreted? There is a behavior of some users that is necessarily forceful. Why remove an entry on a film director? This is beyond my moral perception. מתיאל (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]

The historical importance is not only my opinion, i have stated all the true cinema lovers. And Also, if we lose the criteria, then only "The market" and financial success will be the criteria, and this is a death sentence for art. מתיאל (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]

Source? Industrial Insect (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See here below מתיאל (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight: you are actually claiming that Wikipedia not having an article on this obscure filmmaker is a death sentence for art? Really? Seriously? Ravenswing 18:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My last piece of humble advice: For any personal attacks in your user talk-page or anywhere else, you should submit a complaint against the miscreants. This decreases the noise and helps the Wikipedia project. As to your suggestion that only those who have seen the subject's movies can have an opinion in this AfD, that's patently absurd and I hope that upon some further thinking, you'll see it too. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I file a complaint about him? About the other thing, doesn't it make sense that only film experts will write about movies and only music experts will write about Music etc? A list of further reliable sources will be uploaded to the talk page of the article tomorrow. מתיאל (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the offender has already deleted his bad slander. מתיאל (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please prove me that Assume good faith is the right way מתיאל (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]

No. It doesn't make sense, and Wikipedia has never worked that way. We do not kowtow before the authority of "experts" -- the more so in that so very many "experts" are self-proclaimed. WP:GNG plainly sets an objective standard that any editor with a modicum of experience can gauge, and that holds true for articles on athletes, on historical figures, on actors, and on filmmakers. Ravenswing 18:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NDIRECTOR, WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG, of the sources presented none meet the level of RS required. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A list of sources

third-party, independent, significant sources! Prosecution of artists is unacceptable!!! מתיאל (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל

You are again engaging in personal characterizations, calling editors "prosecutors"! Whatever the motive might be for such persistent behavior, it is unacceptable. You are already taking up too much of this discussion, so it's evidently advisable to step away, as I will do too, if I do not have to address some further input from you. -The Gnome (talk) 12:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forensics on the new avalanche of links:

I took the liberty of numbering your list.

#1 is the artist's agent who's simply promoting their client. Come on! #2 is an entry in the list of all participants in a certain film festival. #3, #10, #12, #13, #22 are interviews, and we've already been through this; interviews are not, on their own, evidence of notability. #4 is a Netflix listing of every person under the sun connected, however remotely, to that streaming service. Same goes for #5, a MUBI listing; all we get from these listings is proof that the subject does exist and is indeed an artist. #6 looks like a joke but it's not; it's our subject's Rotten Tomatoes page, which reads, in its entirety : "Highest Rated: Not Available. Lowest Rated: Not Available. Birthday: Not Available. Birthplace: Not Available." What possessed you to include this I have no idea - it's actually evidence of non-notability.

#7 is a write-up by a fellow up-and-coming artist on his blog; not a source for notability. #8 is the IMDB entry and, per WP:NFILM, IMDb is not considered a reliable source for proving notability. #9 is a glowing write-up by our subject's sister. Do you truly count siblings as independent sources? #10 and #11 are yet more typical listings. #14 is a write-up by a "production services" company related to our subject. #15 is a review of Stars. #17 is yet another enthusiast's blog entry. #18 is one more listing/announcement. #19 is the same as #14. #20 is a review of Mister Sister. #21 is one more interview, this one of a bunch of people, among whom is our subject. #22, #23, and #24 are all YouTube interviews. Enough.

I am raging, this is not fair, especially about 7, so what, it is a good review, and what was written by his sisters?!? Youtube interview are media, it is not videos made by him. You can't pass up 15 and 17, they are legitimate film reviews by true film lovers. All I ask for is some fairness!!! מתיאל (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]

You openly dispute the premise of accepting the good will of your fellow contributors. Then you admit you are raging. And you continue to invoke not just flocks of meaningless links as "sources," ignoring the reasons they cannot be such (e.g. blogs are not, on their own), but "arguments" specifically unacceptable in AfD discussions, e.g. "The quality of his work is enough for an article", "It benefits Wikipedia", "He is popular", "What's the harm in having this article?", etc. I will suggest one final time we both vacate the space here and allow input from other editors. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some blogs are legitimate, Some wikipedia's policies are wrong. i added much more reliable sources. Help me, instead of being against me or the article. מתיאל (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]

You're welcome to disagree with Wikipedia policies, and you're welcome to try to get them changed, but until and unless you do so, you need to abide by them. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm raging for the lack of goodwill. Logical מתיאל (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People, not you, can't use psychological violence and that complain about "Uncivilized reactions" מתיאל (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please address sources 29 until 25 מתיאל (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Large slab of mostly unhelpful text

Assuming goodwill

Sorry, as a community we must help each other and not fail each other. I get a lot of hard time here, instead of helping. מתיאל (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]

Help me, i feel like i'm in noval from Kafka מתיאל (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]

Further sources

"24th Annual Dances With Films Festival by Robin Menken". www.filmfestivals.com. Retrieved 2021-11-25. "Mister Sister | Film | Winter Film Awards International Film Festival". 2021-07-25. Retrieved 2021-10-24. Grobar, Matt (2021-08-24). "L.A.'s Dances With Films Unveils Lineup, Sets Paul Greengrass & Michael London As Speakers For Inaugural First Films Series". Deadline. Retrieved 2021-10-25. Wild, Stephi. "NYC's Winter Film Awards International Film Festival Returns For 10th Annual Celebration Of Indie Film". BroadwayWorld.com. Retrieved 2021-11-25. Weekend, No Rest for the (2021-08-02). "Winter Film Awards International Film Festival Returns for 10th Annual Celebration of Indie Film…". Medium. Retrieved 2021-11-25. "MISTER SISTER | Dances With Films". Retrieved 2021-10-24. Rabinowitz, Chloe. "MISTER SISTER Screens At The Winter Film Awards In NYC". BroadwayWorld.com. Retrieved 2021-10-25. "Mister Sister Pictures and Photos - Getty Images". www.gettyimages.in. Retrieved 2021-11-25. Hipes, Patrick (2021-07-23). "L.A.'s Dances With Films Returning With Expanded In-Person Festival; 'The Art Of Protest' Opening-Night Film". Deadline. Retrieved 2021-11-25. "Mister Sister – suicidal straight guy finds love within NYC's drag community". TheBUZZ Magazine. 2021-10-06. Retrieved 2021-11-25. "Drag Queens, Chinese Food, A Nun, NYC, "Mister Sister" Film Premieres at Dances with Films Festival (dir. Mars Roberge)". The WOW Report. 2021-07-29. Retrieved 2021-11-25. Chat with Massively talented Mars Roberge. DJ, Artist, Screenwriter, Editor, Award winning Filmmaker, retrieved 2021-12-22 "Rise NYC: Rock 'n' Roll Manifesto (Remix by Genesis Breyer P-Orridge)". Destroy//Exist. 11 August 2021. Retrieved 2021-10-25. "'MISTER SISTER' Film review. Director Mars Roberge delivers another heavenly splash of back alley Americana". OriginalRock.net. 2021-10-06. Retrieved 2021-11-25. Dina (16 August 2021). "Mister Sister 2020 | MyIndie Productions". Retrieved 2021-11-25. "Mister Sister". Film Threat. 2021-09-23. Retrieved 2021-11-25. "WFA 2021 Nominees & Winners | Winter Film Awards International Film Festival". 2021-10-04. Retrieved 2021-10-25. "Scumbag | IFFR". iffr.com. Retrieved 2021-10-24. Dunn, Bryen (9 February 2017). "Die J! Mars is bringing his latest film, "Scumbag", to Queens for the North American premiere". Absolution. "Interview with MARS ROBERGE". DMME. Retrieved 6 September 2018. "2017 JURY HONORS". Hollywood Film Festival. Retrieved 6 September 2018. "Patricia Field Documentarian Has A New Film "ScumBag"". The WOW Report. 6 December 2014. Retrieved 5 September 2018. - "Scumbag". SugarBuzz. Retrieved 20 June 2018. ""A Day in the Life" with local Toronto filmmaker Mars Roberge". Toronto Guardian. 16 May 2017. Retrieved 6 September 2018. "Mars Roberge - Scumbag". Fred English Channel. 4 February 2017. Retrieved 5 September 2018. "Household Filmmaking - Interview With Scumbag Director Mars Roberge", Youtube, 25 September 2018, retrieved 26 September 2018 "NFMLA 1/2015 MovieMaker Magazine Interview with Dir. Mars Roberge", Youtube, 7 April 2015, retrieved 5 September 2018 "Cult Film "SCUMBAG" (dir. Mars Roberge)". Zeitgeist World. Retrieved 6 September 2018. - Karmiya Nicola Interviews Mars Roberge on Scumbag, retrieved 6 September 2018 "Celebrity Interview - Mars Roberge". BlogTalkRadio. Retrieved 6 September 2018. My Gay Toronto (26 April 2017), Scumbag Comes To Canada, retrieved 6 September 2018 Bellini, Paul. "Scumbag" (PDF). TheBuzzmag. - "Scumbag Interview Brainwashed Radio KCLA99.3FM 09.29.16", SoundCloud, retrieved 5 September 2018 - "scumbagthemovie". Instagram. Archived from the original on 2021-12-26. Retrieved 27 September 2018. "KATIE CHATS: MARS ROBERGE, FILMMAKER, THE LITTLE HOUSE THAT COULD", Youtube, 24 March 2013, retrieved 27 September 2018 "Mars Roberge". Punk Globe. Retrieved 5 September 2018. "Queens World Film Festival's 2017 Line-Up". Queens Gazette. Retrieved 5 September 2018. - "Queens World Film Festival Unveils Diverse Lineup". Queens Tribune. Retrieved 5 September 2018. Dina. "Scumbag: Written Review". MyIndie Productions. Retrieved 5 September 2018. "'Scumbag': A movie for anyone who has ever hated their job & would do anything not to be there". DangerousMinds. 31 July 2017. Retrieved 5 September 2018. "Scumbag". SugarBuzz. Retrieved 27 September 2018. "Scumbag". Punk Globe. Retrieved 5 September 2018. "Mars Roberge over Scumbag - IFFR 2017: de mafste film van het festival". VPRO (in Dutch). Retrieved 5 September 2018. ""SCUMBAG", THE DARK COMEDY BY MARS ROBERGE FT. IN INDIEGOGO". FBF. 27 December 2014. Retrieved 6 September 2018. "Mars Roberge". www.punkglobe.com. Retrieved 5 September 2018. - ""Scumbag" The Movie by Mars Roberge". Rank and Revue. Retrieved 5 September 2018. Christopher Moonlight Productions (25 September 2018), "Household Filmmaking - Interview With Scumbag Director Mars Roberge", Youtube, retrieved 27 September 2018 "Mars Roberge over Scumbag The Movie". Gonzo (circus) (in Dutch). Retrieved 6 September 2018. Finnie, Nikki. "Mars Roberge and his movie 'Scumbag'". The Punk Lounge. Retrieved 6 September 2018. "Mars Roberge - Director of Scumbag", Youtube, 11 June 2016, retrieved 5 September 2018 "Kate Hudson Gushes Over BF Danny Fujikawa: 5 Things to Know About Him!". Us Weekly. 11 May 2017. Retrieved 6 September 2018. Ciccarelli, Stephanie (14 May 2009). "Voice Over Contracts | Growing Your Business - Getting The Gig". Voices.com Blog. Retrieved 6 September 2018. "Linda Lamb - Scumbag #IFFR2017". Fred English Channel. 4 February 2017. Retrieved 5 September 2018. - "Camille Waldorf - Scumbag #IFFR2017". Fred English Channel. 4 February 2017. Retrieved 5 September 2018. BWW News Desk. "Austin Pendleton, Charles Busch and More Set For Theater for the New City's LOWER EAST SIDE FESTIVAL OF THE ARTS". BroadwayWorld.com. Retrieved 2020-05-28. Scumbag, "Scumbag" U.K. Premiere Q & A w/ Ryan Beard, retrieved 2018-12-20 "Mars Roberge's autonomous SCUMBAG movie is now available to watch in Europe". OriginalRock.net. 2021-12-01. Retrieved 2021-12-02. "Scumbag (2017)". Cinema Crazed. Retrieved 6 September 2018. "Recensies; boekrecensies, filmrecensies, muziekrecensies, theaterrecensies". www.derecensent.nl. Retrieved 5 September 2018. "Inside Mars Roberge's 'Scumbag'". Review Fix. 28 April 2017. Retrieved 6 September 2018. "#MustSee: Cult Film "SCUMBAG" (dir. Mars Roberge)". The WOW Report. 23 April 2018. Retrieved 20 June 2018. "沒有最怪，只有見怪不怪！獨立電影的天堂：荷蘭 IFFR 鹿特丹影展". POLYSH (in Chinese (Taiwan)). 18 February 2017. Retrieved 20 June 2018. "15 Best Things to Do in L.A. This Week". LA Weekly. 29 March 2018. Retrieved 20 June 2018. "Scumbag". Film Threat. 4 April 2018. Retrieved 20 June 2018. Finnie, Nikki. "Mars Roberge and his movie 'Scumbag'". The Punk Lounge. Retrieved 27 September 2018. "Club Kid, Superstar DJ Keoki, Arrested and Under Investigation". The BUZZ. 19 January 2017. Retrieved 5 September 2018. "2017 JURY HONORS". Hollywood Film Festival. Retrieved 4 September 2018. "Sex, Drugs, And Telemarketing – A Look At Mars Roberge's SCUMBAG". BWW News. Retrieved 20 June 2018. Dunn, Bryen (9 February 2017). "Die J! Mars is bringing his latest film, "Scumbag", to Queens for the North American premiere". Absolution. "Interview with MARS ROBERGE". DMME. Retrieved 6 September 2018. "2017 JURY HONORS". Hollywood Film Festival. Retrieved 6 September 2018.

מתיאל (talk) 09:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]

Stop! Just stop. This is pure bludgeoning! You admitted you are posting in a state of rage. Have pity on us and stop. -The Gnome (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But my claims are rightful. From now on i will post only sources. מתיאל (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]

Why aren't you answering? מתיאל (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]

Having emotions is not a crime מתיאל (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]

Delete A lot of blugeoning here on a article for some reason, perhaps indicative at best of being non-notable. Closest to notability is WP:NDIRECTOR but I don't think he passes the criteria. The rest, bit part actor, writer somewhat (nothing notable), producer, nothing stands out. I think it is fail on WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 11:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are completely unreliable. The director is not the focus of them. It is trite that IMDB entries do not establish notability. And being the director of a couple of barely notable indie films does not make the director independently notable. Local Variable (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete bludgeoning aside, I think this person barely doesn't meet GNG, from counting the WP:THREE best sources above. He's close, but not quite. BrigadierG (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:DIRECTOR. ——Serial Number 54129 14:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability per DIRECTOR and no SIGCOV either. WP:THREE not met either. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Lightburst (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Add me to the list of editors raising a serious eyebrow at the bludgeoning. Whether or not you like Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding notability and the requirement for "significant coverage" of the subject (not his works) in multiple, reliable, independent sources is not an issue for this AfD. Those are the policies and guidelines in place, honed over twenty years of debate and struggle, and that's what we use to determine notability. The subject here does not meet those standards. Ravenswing 15:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I suppose there could in theory be some evidence of notability in that massive link dump above, but there isn't enough in the article as it stands. Even if deleted, article could be improved as a draft, and then re-added. Deletion isn't necessarily forever. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 17:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:GNG. If you look at the articles for his films Scumbag and Mister Sister, those too are questionable, thus diluting these films as a basis for notability. Although I haven't done a thorough check on those films Graywalls (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously. I hope מתיאל can find a way past the "psychological violence" of this !vote. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:54, 1 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 Ugly Betty season 3#ep63. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the Stars (Ugly Betty)

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

Non-notable television episode. Boarder line WP:ALLPLOT Couldnt find any sources on the episode Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ugly Betty season 3#ep63. Episode titles are reasonable search topics, but there is little evidence of coverage for this episode outside of brief mentions of Adele's guest appearance. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:08, 26 April 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.

Apache Ambari

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

There are references that verify its existence but nothing that shows notability under WP:GNG. Once of many forks from List of Apache Software Foundation projects. Can be redirected back to the list page as an WP:ATD but bringing to discussion in case someone is able to find better sourcing. CNMall41 (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found a couple of books that mention Ambari-Hadoop for Dummies and Hadoop in 24 Hours — Sean Brunnock (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's some decent coverage in books and in articles found in scholar. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which references? I do see mentions (which again, verify its existence) but which references would you say contribute to notability? --CNMall41 (talk) 03:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Apache Software Foundation projects as nom suggested. Pretty insignificant coverage. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 16:15, 29 April 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Pleasant, Cass County, Indiana

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

According to the county history source, this "nearly extinct" town never really took off in the first place. This is the kind of place that gives WP:GEOLAND a bad name, because even though one can use the two sources to give a location and something of a history, there's no way this place passess any real notability standard, and so I predict we will be left arguing whether this was a real ~~unincorporated community~~town or not. Mangoe (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The history of Cass County, Indiana [82] has one mention of a Mount Pleasant, and it's Mount Pleasant, Ohio. If that source doesn't have anything we don't have much to go by. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:GEOLAND doesn't apply to communities that possibly don't even exist. Samoht27 (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I still fine with deleting because, it's no notable, but should point out that the 3 reference page 482 describes it as a paper town. It had a stored whose primary clientele were native americans buying firewater, several people lived there, and it was platted. It subsisted off of traffic along the the road prior to building of a railway when it died forgood. So it sorta existed, 1836-mid1850s but the source does call it a "paper town" which I assume means they considered it a failed venture.James.folsom (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:49, 2 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.

Aquarius Musikindo

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

Nothing notable, nor relevant per GNG. No SIGCOV. The author is blocked for evading the block Gavrover (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if we can verify the article's claim that it is the second largest record label in Indonesia, it's definitely worthy of inclusion. Chubbles (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's definitely the second-biggest.[83][84][85][86] WC gudang inspirasi (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One source on one page of a book is the definition of failing WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doyle Owl

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

No indication of notability outside of the college. I am unable to find significant discussion of this mascot in independent sources. ... discospinster _talk 03:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Education, and Oregon. ... discospinster _talk 03:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Reed College. Sources are not independent. Neocorelight (Talk) 06:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, good sources improvements have been added and made since the nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to sources added last week, I've listed more potential sources to the article's Talk page (in decreasing order of value for notability), in the event others might want to add more text. Article clears the bar for WP:GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilage

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

Only one legitimate entry for spoilage. I've transferred the most numerous entries to Spoiled. Articles could easily be written (and should) about spoilage in business and of food in its place. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I have added a source at Tampering with evidence for Spoilage of evidence being used as an alternative name for this concept (which immediately came to mind when I saw the term, and was a surprising omission), and have added that to the disambiguation page. BD2412 T 02:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not see what is wrong with this DAB page. Bearian (talk) 01:12, 3 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.

Richard L. Albert

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

Lacks significant coverage, though his company Design Projects is an extremely generic name. No possible redirect as his company does not have an article. He seems to have worked mostly on B movies. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 01:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 01:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Advertising, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Design Projects Incorporated was formed on February 10, 1978 in California, (see https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business) and was closed on June 1, 1994.

Design Projects first client was Universal Pictures, and also did advertising, design and packaging for 20th Century Fox, Warner Home Video, Columbia Pictures, as well as international distributors, starting with Best International Films and Producers Sales Organizations, and including Goldcrest and ad campaigns for Sanrio Films while they had a Los Angeles branch office.

It also created ad campaigns for many independent film distributors, such as Group One, New World, Film Ventures International. We also

Prior to 1978, I worked as a freelance designer for Universal Pictures, Filmways, as well as Universal Music.

Richard Albert RLA2024 (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Woke. Although clearly in some way notable, this term is not clearly separable from pejorative uses of 'woke' already discussed at our existing article and should be discussed there. —Ganesha811 (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woke Mind Virus

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

Feels entirely like WP:NEO. Half the usage section is just dedicated to Elon Musk (at the time of AFD nomination).

Look I understand Go woke, go broke exists, but that feels like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Is every popular iteration of a phrase invoking the ideas of wokeness going to have its own article?

According to the article, "Vanity Fair has titled whole sections of stories under the "Woke Mind Virus" label." This isn't actually a label that is selectable/catagorized/tagged like "politics", but a custom label for one article.

I do not doubt the phrase's usage in popular media and by influential people, but it is essentially the same thing as woke. I could go on, but I think this can be deleted and redirected to woke. Alternatively, this content can be merged into woke as its own section with the criticism. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Journalism, News media, Philosophy, Conservatism, Discrimination, History, and Politics. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since WP:NEO is cited, let us see what it says, Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, but in this case this phrase is very widely cited across an enormous variety of reliable sources. The phrase probably should also be mentioned at the woke article and other mentions should be added and included, but a page for Woke Mind Virus itself makes sense given the sources as broad and significant as they are. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn, yes it is popular term, this is already addressed. WP:NEO also says, Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. This is not in question. I do not doubt it will be utilized in large portions of media and scholarly works. Until it is shown to be its own distinct concept, it is essentially a branch term used to criticize wokeness. There is a criticism section in woke that this neologism can direct to in my opinion. Currently, Anti-woke redirects to woke. Anti-woke is an older term than woke mind virus and used it much more media/scholarly works. WMV is just a substitute term for being against wokeness (or anti-woke). Alternatively, I think a separate article that incorporates reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term titled something along the lines of "Criticisms of woke/wokeness" or even "anti-woke" could also be appropriate, where WMV redirects to. I do not see the point of a standalone article about Woke Mind Virus. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect no evidence that this neologism deserves a stand-alone wikipedia article. (t · c) buidhe 07:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a neologism, there are numerous treatments in secondary sources (see Isaacson, Ali, Krugman, McKeown and Wright, etc.). Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NEO and has coverage by reliable sources. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge and redirect to woke. There's no separate subject here -- it's the same "woke" pejorative discussed in that article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect, maybe i'm just biased because this is an inherently silly sounding phrase, but I don't see how it differentiates from the term "Woke" so a redirect there would be optimal. Samoht27 (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Woke, it's just a slight variation of the exact same thing. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A couple people have suggested a merge or redirect, but I would like to point out that this term "woke mind virus" actually has quite substantial coverage of its own differentiating it quite a bit from "woke" and therefore a mere mention of this term on that page seems to be inadequate. This source mentions the term as distinct but was early in coverage so does not yet mention what WMV means. This source mentions the WMV phrase in depth by itself completely independent of "woke". This source mentions the history of the term, especially as used specifically by Elon Musk since around 2021 and in reference to San Francisco and includes some of the defining language that separates and distinguishes this phrase at is popularly understood by sources, Despite his repeated use of the phrase, the precise meaning of “woke mind virus” has been difficult to pin down. Musk told Bill Maher during an interview on HBO: “I think we need to be very cautious about anything that is anti-meritocratic, and anything that … results in the suppression of free speech. Those are two aspects of the woke mind virus that I think are very dangerous.” This source speaks uniquely of the WMV by saying much about Musk's use of it from a critical perspective. This source again uses both "woke" as well as WMV and refers to them as distinct terms with their own meanings. This source predominantly focuses on just the "woke" phrase but has an important passing mention of WMV, though obviously passing mentions in general are not to carry weight towards an AfD consideration. This source covers the phrase and the Netflix mention with some detail. I believe the above, and much more can be found with fairly little work and effort actually to support an independent page for both the WMV phrase as well as woke and other phrases mentioned by other editors.Iljhgtn (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of these sources are not reliable, though. (t · c) buidhe 15:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article from The Wall Street Journal leading on this subject in a very strong WP:SIGCOV manner. This article from Rolling Stone discusses the term/phrase with both Musk as well as Bill Maher's involvement and contributions. This article from fact-checking website Snopes cites the Webster dictionary definition of "woke" independent of the subsequent mention of "woke mind virus" which the article then explores in depth further on going back to its seeming origins (related to Musk at least) from 2021, The first mention of the words "woke mind virus" that we could find in Musk's feed showed up in December 2021. There is much, much, more out there on the internet as well that can be easily found. The "no evidence" claim seems to have not sufficiently considered WP:BEFORE. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOPAGE we also need to consider if this topic benefits from being a stand alone article rather than being covered in the woke article. Evidence for this theory is what I think is lacking. (t · c) buidhe 06:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the phrase is not really notable and similar phrases already exist. It's just a variation of the term woke. There exists multiple variations of this same term and they do not have their own unique articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk • contribs) 11:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand the concerns of the UNDUE weight given to the Elon Musk section, but that's not the purpose of AfD. Further, given the deletion rational of NEO, I think it's easy to examine the references provided in the article and in an independent search that the term woke mind virus meets notability independently from woke and is an appropriate topic split. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO does seem to apply here - avoid making pages for terms in order to increase usage of the term. SportingFlyer T·C 04:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This term is very widely used by reliable sources, so WP:NEO doesn't seem to apply. Because of the wide range of reliable sourcing, the term does deserve its own page beyond just something like "woke." Doctorstrange617 (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes GNG from sources showing in the footnotes. The fact that it is an epithet popularized by a crackpot billionaire is neither here nor there. Carrite (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back. This is as forky as they come. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You must of course mean WP:CFORK and not WP:FORK as FORK is defined in the first line of the link you made as Mirrors and forks of Wikipedia are publications that mirror (copy exactly) or fork (copy, but change parts of the material of) Wikipedia, no? microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 02:39, 3 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.

Nodar Kancheli

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

No independent notability apart from two collapsed buildings. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Architecture, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:CREATIVE #3. In addition to the two buildings mentioned in the article, he contributed to the Kolomna Speed Skating Center, per this source: [87], as well as other significant projects. E.g. he designed the dome of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour: [88]. Sufficient for a referenced stub. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Several sources discuss his work as can be found here. These are all in English. I'm sure someone who knows Russian can find a lot more than this. Considering this with the above points, I believe the subject is notable, and there is significant coverage. Aintabli (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Khachatryan

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

Boxer whose only reference is a database entry. There is a draft for a diplomat, Draft: Artur Khachatryan, which will otherwise require disambiguation. The need for disambiguation is not a reason to delete, but the lack of sports notability is Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and Armenia. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's more content at the Russian and Polish wikis that should be checked. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with above comment. I'd lean to a procedural keep if those sources help demonstrate WP:N. Archives908 (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NBOX, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. The AIBA database entry shows he had 4 wins and 5 losses in his short career. His bronze medal at the European championships qualified him for the 2011 world championships where he lost his first fight (in the round of 64). I saw no significant independent coverage of him and no indication of meeting any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to have an editor review those sources at other Wikipedias and provide some concrete information or this discussion will likely close as Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources offered by the Russian and Polish articles are just database win/loss listings. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McKenzie Buckley

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an English rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the folllowing article as he is a member of the same team (St Helens R.F.C.) who also fails to meet WP:SPORTBASIC:

Ben Lane (rugby league) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Professional rugby league footballer who has played football at the elite level. 5 sources related to his football career.Fleets (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't appear as if he is currently playing, one pro aperance isn't sufficient. Mn1548 (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only routine coverage aka signings and game reports, WP:SPORTBASIC. Other keep votes here should be discounted for making no mention of source depth. BrigadierG (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Five sources, even if none of them are specific to the subject, and the fact that most other team members have their own articles as well. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires in-depth coverage. Mere mentions in sources do not suffice. JTtheOG (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware, but if you want to be strict with that an AFD should be made for George Delaney, Ben Lane (rugby league), and other members of the St. Helens team as many only have passing or list mentions.

Buckley and others have their only specific mention on the rugby league project website, which isn't very in-depth as you said. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes they should. If you fling 100 non-notable stubs onto Wikipedia, you can't then also defend them from deletion by pointing out that the other 99 still exist. BrigadierG (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bundled the two others I mentioned who fall under the same deletion criteria with this AFD. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you do a WP:BEFORE search? Articles should probably be nominated individually anyways, which I was reminded of two days ago. JTtheOG (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though looking at that previous AFD I'll retract the nomination for Delaney for now as he seems to have slightly more content than the other two, though still nothing in-depth. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to use the additional nominations template or else it messes up the closure process. BrigadierG (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's there right below the initial nomination. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I was also unable to find any coverage of Ben Lane. JTtheOG (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep for Ben Lane per WP:BUNDLE. Nominating another article after several editors have already commented in this AfD is not appropriate. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of meeting SPORTCRIT. The Ben Lane AfD should occur separately but I'd !vote delete there too. JoelleJay (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kauvaka Kaivelata

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's a few bits in the article and in a search to suggest coverage is increasing, especially with the players career just starting to kick off. I'd imagine there will be a couple more bits coming in the near future, so perhaps could be draftifyed, but I think worth keeping and expanding as likely the draft will just be deleted. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beatbox Kitchen

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

Fails WP:NCORP. See table below. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wjgg9x/raph-rashid-connects-cooking-with-home-studios	Lengthy discussion of Rashid before interview begins		coverage is of Rashid, not the restaurant	✘ No
https://www.broadsheet.com.au/melbourne/food-and-drink/article/beatbox-kitchen-opens-brunswick	? Unclear whether Broadsheet contains sponsored content	? Unclear		? Unknown
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/food-trucks-ready-to-burn-rubber-to-your-nearest-park-20200925-p55zcj.html			Bare mention of the restaurant, article is about COVID	✘ No
https://www.broadsheet.com.au/melbourne/food-and-drink/article/food-truck-fitzroy-beatbox-kitchen-opens-second-shop	? Unsure whether Broadsheet contains sponsored content	? Unclear		? Unknown
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/lifestyle/melbourne/beatbox-kitchens-raph-rashid-makes-the-ultimate-aussie-burger/news-story/554135474e0b453ae601670b470d46c9	? Tabloid	~	Bare mention of the restaurant	✘ 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}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question Hey, GMH Melbourne, I'm not as familiar with AUS sources as you probably are, but to me those don't all look like simple straight interviews. Many sources will speak to a representative when covering any sort of business, and quoting those representatives doesn't turn a story into an interview. I feel like multiple of them are actually talking about the business in their own voices more than they're quoting the representatives. Can you elaborate on why you feel each of these doesn't represent independent coverage? Are these sources known for sponsored content?

For me the Vice piece probably fails to support notability of the restaurant more because its four long paragraphs before the interview portion are about the proprietor rather than about the restaurant. I would actually tend to accept that source as support for notability for the proprietor. Valereee (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the table, the other sources are not just interviews, but also promo pieces or very promotional. A promo piece definitely would not count as a RS. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I understand what you mean. If we take what you have said into account, I'd say that The Age article could count towards GNG. Broadsheet is a food/travel magazine it would be hard to say whether or not they are totally independent of the subject. The Herald Sun article is a total promo piece with a burger created exclusively for heraldsun.com.au which leads me to doubt the independence of the broadsheet articles. - GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meh...I don't see promotionalism of the restaurant in that piece. That's more the herald promoting itself, which all newspapers do to some extent -- a story 'exclusive to the NYT' is not the NYT promoting the subject of their story but the NYT promoting themselves. So a burger created exclusively for the herald is really just the herald saying, "Aren't you glad you're reading the herald, because otherwise you wouldn't get this recipe!" But that said, again the piece is primarily about Rashid and Chang, not about Beatbox. So again I'd say not sigcov of this article subject.

The Broadsheet articles are about the restaurant. I generally like to see different sources, but these are at least written by different people at the Broadsheet. But that's still local coverage. The Age is probably not significant coverage, it's a bare mention of BeatBox in a story about food trucks during COVID. And the Vice is not about the restaurant.

I think on balance I'm landing on Delete. Valereee (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While current sentiment is leaning towards delete, giving this another seven days to assess if further input continues to lean that way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this Vice article which is no doubt independent, sigcov, and has depth:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/wjgg9x/raph-rashid-connects-cooking-with-home-studios

This coverage of it shutting down which nevertheless is a secondary source that provides critical commentary of its life:

https://www.smh.com.au/goodfood/eating-out/beatbox-kitchens-brunswick-burger-shop-is-closing-down-20210715-h1x5me.html

This, combined with the dubious but in my opinion passable Broadsheet coverage meets WP:THREE and WP:GNG. BrigadierG (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say the vice article is total independent, the vast majority of it is an interview with the owner, and even then I would say that it is based more on the owner rather than Beatbox Kitchen itself. GMH Melbourne (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That Vice piece is already in the article, and as GMH says, it's not about the subject. It's about the owner. Valereee (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but consider a new BLP article on Raph Rashid, for which the Vice article would be one principle source (two more would be necessary). The Vice article is in the source assessment table, which makes the point that the article is about Rashid and not about Beatbox Kitchen. We don't seem to have a BLP article on Raph Rashid, but that might be what is notable, not the burger truck. The article on the closing down must be approached with more caution. It is a discursive primary source inasmuch as it is reporting the closure. Discursive because it provides some background. The background is relevant, the occasion for the source is not, being primary. See WP:SIRS. Nothing here meets WP:CORPDEPTH and this fails WP:NCORP, but again, we have one good source for a BLP. If the BLP existed, redirect would be reasonable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the chain fails sigcov but the owner could have an article on themselve. X (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mission of the International Organisation for Migration, London

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

No secondary sources. Sole source is government list. Article on an individual office of the IOM which simply states it exists and its location. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. Nothing to merge and an implausible search term. AusLondonder (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this is a good merge candidate because there's not even enough information to work out if any of the content is even still true. It does seem to still exist from a Google search, but it's certainly not notable outside of its parent article. Redirect not especially good idea other as is not a likely redirect BrigadierG (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator rationale. Local units of larger organizations are not notable unless there are substantial reliable source coverage of it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to International Organization for Migration as WP:ATD. There are 195 incoming links to this page and although most are likely from {{Diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom}} it is WP:CHEAPER to redirect than to identify and adjust the links. ~Kvng (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a redirect, this is an utterly implausible search term. ATD doesn't mean we can literally never delete anything nor does it eliminate other parts of the deletion policy such as WP:DEL-REASON: see #8 "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)" are suitable for deletion. Incoming links appear to be from the template. A redirect is also undue as this office is not mentioned at International Organization for Migration (nor should it be). AusLondonder (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above, I oppose redirect too. LibStar (talk) 23:19, 30 April 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.