User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 00:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Relists	Score
Isha Malviya (2nd nomination)	3 months ago	4	7139	0	8294.64
Edward Parker (police officer)	18 days ago	1	3765	0	1688.21
111 Rocket Regiment	21 days ago	4	5897	0	1674.31
Lybrate (2nd nomination)	19 days ago	3	7167	0	1607.51
World Unity Football Alliance	20 days ago	4	8710	0	1585.25
Brower Youth Awards	18 days ago	2	7173	0	1518.64
Fermor (Russian nobility)	17 days ago	2	7850	0	1466.9
Upwave	13 days ago	0	6348	0	1343.92
Second Battle of Robotyne	16 days ago	3	12209	0	1314.56
Jan Pawelec	12 days ago	0	3913	0	1305.09
Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh	13 days ago	1	5852	0	1270.33
Federation of European Mineral Programs	11 days ago	0	3152	0	1209.65
Manyiel Wugol	14 days ago	3	5351	0	1181.36
VanGrunsven RV-2	13 days ago	2	14860	0	1167.73
Irina Nikolaeva	13 days ago	3	4827	0	1133.08
2021 Ravanusa explosion	11 days ago	2	4350	0	1103.06
Singara Chennai	11 days ago	2	5187	0	1084.72
Dwaram Bhavanarayana Rao	10 days ago	1	4191	0	1083.19
Erel Segal	12 days ago	3	7042	0	1081.59
Qiu Shi Science and Technology Prize	12 days ago	3	12581	0	1079.79
Disagreement	10 days ago	1	3962	0	1073.05
Terwin (corporation)	11 days ago	2	6413	0	1064.9
Kicko & Super Speedo (2nd nomination)	11 days ago	2	4577	0	1057.95
Notcoin (2nd nomination)	12 days ago	4	7116	0	1046.99
Stock exchanges of small economies	12 days ago	4	5114	0	1042.93

Isha Malviya

Isha Malviya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article heavily relies on unreliable sources as per WP:ICTFSOURCES. Single significant role in Udaariyaan. Does not meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:N. Editingmylove (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Beauty pageants, Fashion, and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: At least one significant award won and 3 significant award nominations have her meet WP:ANYBIO imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Eye raising nomination, but that aside, I think this is close. There is a lot of fancruft references, interviews, general announcements, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, etc. And, winning an award or appearing on a television show does not give inherent notability (I think the Indian Telly Awards individual categories may not meet notability either). However, there are at least two references that are bylined and not just routine announcements here and here. I'll reserve a !vote at the moment in hopes someone can point out coverage that isn't routine. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• weak delete: most coverage is about the TV show Big Boss [1], I wouldn't call it extensive coverage. This is a RS, but what's used in the article are all marginal reliability sources per Cite Highlighter, so I'm not sure we have enough to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: The user who has nominated the page for deletion is a new account created solely to ensure the page is deleted. The previous two nominations have also been a result of fandom war. As for the notability, it has been established the last 2 times as well. She has done 2 lead roles, one major reality, show, numerous music videos, a web series in post production, notable award nominations and wins. [FYI, Indian Telly Awards and Indian Television Academy Awards are two of the most notable ITV Awards regardless of whether the pages are well updated on Wikipedia or not.] The actress has sufficient coverage, apart from all her work and has more on the way. Hasty deletion to fulfill online fan wars makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.39.32.83 (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Looking at your contibutions which is only this comment and anyone can say that you are the account created to this comment only. Columbidae5 (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: The article is looking like fan made article who is doing undo removed content. Neutral point of view is also missing in the article. It looks like promotional content. Columbidae5 (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Notable personality. Filmography with different credits. Nominations and wins in terms of two known awards. Additionally, this seems to be another potential attempt by online supporters of other actors. The previous deletion discussion of this page was quite similar and was started by a fan of another ITV actress. This seems to be yet another example of social media hate propaganda. OCDD (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Edward Parker (police officer)

Edward Parker (police officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not meet criteria of notability Welcome to Pandora (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Seem to be police officers all over the world with this name... I get hits from the US, Australia and elsewhere, but nothing for this person. I'm not seeing more than a one or two line biography here, unsure of the notability. Lack of sourcing isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Draftify Coverage here in the Sydney Morning Herald from 1930 including biographical information [2]. A google books search focused on "Edward Parker" and "Special Branch" does identify a number of hits ([3]). There is potential for meeting notability guidelines therefore as an WP:ATD I suggest moving to draftspace for incubation. ResonantDis_tortion 10:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning toward delete based on discussion so far, but at least a little more discussion would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

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. No objection to a redirect created, but since there are verifiability concerns to go with misguided creation it seemed prudent not to maintain the content Star Mississippi 01:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

111 Rocket Regiment

111 Rocket Regiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and created as part of COI campaign (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/832LT/Archive.). Ineligible for G5 due to others contributing. Mdann52 (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mdann52 (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Battalion-sized units are usually notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Many similar articles. Akk7a (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: the sockpuppet investigation linked is a "misguided newbie" creating user accounts for Indian regiments "in place of draft articles". Dubious that there is COI. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mrfoogles: it appears slightly more than that... are you aware of the ANI Thread? Mdann52 (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I was not aware of that. It seems like either someone in the Indian Army did actually order soldiers to edit the regiment's Wikipedia articles, or this is some kind of joke, but that's definitely weird. I was not expecting User_talk:PRISH123. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: This [4] is about all there is for the regiment. Not enough to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Should we create a bulk AfD for all these regimental articles as a result of the COI investigation? If they're all of this quality, likely they can all be deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete or redirect per creation by apparent paid editors and lack of major notability. I can't check for non-English sources, which might be helpful on a more obscure topic like this, but it's not like the article's creator checked the notability policy either when creating it. The unit seems to mostly be notable (from before I deleted the uncited bit) for the use of Grad-P rocket systems (see BM-21_Grad) and being a Rocket Regiment (described at Regiment_of_Artillery_(India), so redirect to one of those, maybe. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. What is a possible redirect target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Liz, we could redirect it to Regiment of Artillery (India), but shouldn't this be a delete for WP:DENY reasons? -- asilvering (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Lybrate

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Lybrate
• Articles for deletion/Lybrate (2nd nomination)

Lybrate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unable to find a news which is not a PR. Funding, launches, and announcements are all they have. Even the creator came only to create the page. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, Internet, Software, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. also look like an advertisement! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: One source that doesn't look like an ad: this one. So at least one source of significant coverage. The other articles could have been paid for, but might not all be: even if they sound ad-like, they could still be reliable coverage: we don't know. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Main problem in this AFD is that it is unclear whether the articles are paid or not. If they are not, obviously Keep because it has an enormous amount of coverage, but if (given what the Reliable Sources Noticeboard says about unreported sponsored business content in Indian news) we just use the non-Indian business news sources, I think it likely has to be a Delete because I don't see many of those. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Mrfoogles You are again sharing the funding related link from the source whose reliability is questionable as per WP:RSPSS I can't see any research done by a journalist. Lordofhunter (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This discussion can't be closed as a Soft Deletion so we really need to hear from more editors here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, there is significant coverage of the company that passes WP:GNG. The suggestion that some of the sources are likely to be paid for or sponsored posts without clear evidence of such should not be the reason to delete. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, just barely. Despite 38 references, almost all of them would be excluded for WP:NCORP purposes under WP:ORGTRIV, WP:NEWSORGINDIA or WP:TRIVIALMENTION. However, this Forbes India staff-authored print magazine story, this cover story in The Week, and this Financial Express story clear the bar for WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

World Unity Football Alliance

World Unity Football Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An "international football" organization article that is a WP:HOAX in its current form. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• No comment on GNG, but this is very clearly not a hoax. SportingFlyer T·C 19:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
  • As but one example: there is a "Karen" team listed under Asia, but it is a local group in Minnesota. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

    You are likely unaware that the Karen are an ethnic group from Myanmar who have a diaspora in Minneapolis. SportingFlyer T·C 02:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

    The Karen Football Association, which you can find can find plenty of details about through internet searches are a Karen diaspora group based in Minneapolis. Sherms95 (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

    The Kashmir team is a local club in Bradford. The organization (and the article) pretense to be "national teams for sub-national entities", but it isn't; it's a few random local clubs with ethnic ties that signed up for a press release with this group. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete – It may not be HOAX, but it didn't even organize any competition to be relevant. Svartner (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2024

• That's not true - the BBC even lists Chagos as the winner of one of their competitions: [5] SportingFlyer T·C 09:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC) (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Most of the coverage isn't independent, but there's some coverage, including from Bradford, [6], BBC mentions, the Non-League Football Paper, and the nomination was based on a mis-understanding. SportingFlyer T·C 09:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  They basically do not organize any relevant competitions, a single mention does not prevent failure in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep per above. This is clearly not a hoax, and SportingFlyer makes a good point. It's weak, admittedly, but it's a keep for me right now. Anwegmann (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  • The article is a hoax, because it conflates "national team" with "expat team", and relies on puffery from primary sources to the degree that it makes claims that are demonstrably false. Some actual organization may exist; but it is entirely "we let people put out press releases that pretense to importance which we do not have". Walsh90210 (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

    No, a hoax is generally something that's completely fictional, whereas this is an actual organisation similar to ConIFA. SportingFlyer T·C 09:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as there is no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep: There is some coverage of this alliance, [7], [8], talk about it but are not the primary subject of the article. Forbes article directly about the group [9]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Brower Youth Awards

Brower Youth Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No WP:SIGCOV about the awards themselves to establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Environment, and North America. Longhornsg (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Not an expert on this process but it seems that even a quick online search yields entire news articles about the awards and winners. Just a few I found in 5 minutes:

• Mercury-News
• Grist
• The Nation

What's the process where it's like this article just needs more citations demonstrating WP:SIGCOV?

208.58.205.67 (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@208.58.205.56 I am not sure, personally I have no interest in fixing the article Mr Vili talk 06:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of the recently found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: As a response to @208.58.205.56, The Nation looks like a reliable source and is green on the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources list and there is no consensus for The Mercury News and Grist.com. However those three articles are about winners of the award, not significant coverage about the award itself. There are other sources such as Yale University ([[[10]]]), University of New Hampshire ([[[11]]]), and Institute of Competition Sciences ([[[12]]]), that discuss the background of the award. I think this at least merits to be kept as a stub and/or a list.Prof.PMarini (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect - Earth Island Institute - The problem with the Yale, University of New Hampshire and Institute of Competition Sciences pages are that these are all non independent/primary links for people wanting to apply for the award. What I am not seeing is any source that demonstrates this award is notable, by which some secondary source talks about it as a thing in itself, and not as "our student won" or "this is how to apply". It is not a huge award, but it is an award of Earth Island Institute whose notability is indicated in having a page. That page has one line on these awards that could be expanded with one of Prof.PMarini's sources to describe the award (information that is not clearly on the page, so not a merge), and that is then all we really need. Rather than keeping this as a stub, per Prof.PMarini, we can keep that information where it sits in the context of the institute's work. The redirect preserves page history should this become notable by secondary sources taking notice, and the long list of winners can go because Wikipedia is not a database (WP:NOT), and this is all unsourced and outdated. There are 5 years missing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Fermor (Russian nobility)

Fermor (Russian nobility) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nonnotable RUssuan family tagged since 2019. BAsically unreferenced. - Altenmann >talk 19:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Both named individuals of the Fermor family have high military ranks: William Fermor, General in Chief with the notable act of occupying Berlin plus Governor of Smolensk and Pavel Fermor, first principal of the Alexander Military Law Academy. William Fermor is referenced in the SSNE database of the University of St Andrews as Commander in chief of Russian forces during the 7 year war. Axisstroke (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Notability of some persons has nothing to do with the notability of the family. WP:NOTINHERITED - Altenmann >talk 15:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

    The family bore arms of count of the Holy Roman Empire, your argument is pretty thin. Axisstroke (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

    Evidence? Anyway, In Wikipedia a notability of a subject, namely "Fermor (Russian nobility)" is judged from the presence of reliable sources describing the subject (namely "Fermor (Russian nobility)") in reasonable detail. Please see WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RS WP:CITE. - Altenmann >talk 20:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

    The SSNE entry 3876 referenced above lists it. Axisstroke (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

    SSNE 3876 says not a word about Russian family.- Altenmann >talk 16:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

    SSNE 3876 references count Wiliam Fermor, the most prominent member of this noble Russian family. Axisstroke (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

    For the fourth time, I don't see any references about "noble Russian family" to assert its notability for English Wikipedia. - Altenmann >talk 20:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

    " Governor General of Eastern Prussia and Commander in chief of Russian forces", how can that not be more russian?!?

    A family is the sum of its members of which there are several notable members.

    Repeating nonsensical stuff 4 or 5 times does not prove your point.

    The article subject is a Strong Keep as stated early on. Axisstroke (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

    Several persons with the same surname does not prove they constitute a family notable per Wikipedia requirements.

    You keep ignoring my request to provide reliable sources describing the subject (namely "Fermor (Russian nobility)") in reasonable detail. I find it really strange to call wikipedia policies "nonsensical stuff". - Altenmann >talk 17:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

    The family has among its members several military leaders, one of the richest female entrepeneurs and has an high noble title. You seem not to have looked up the russian sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems your only argument. Also please stop removing relevant material. Axisstroke (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

    Sorry, I think I understood where the misunderstanding comes from. Please provide sources about the subject (namely "Fermor (Russian nobility)") rather than about individual members. In English Wikipedia Notability is not inherited. - Altenmann >talk 20:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

    While the individual sources already give enough weight to its individual members of the family added relevant sources. Axisstroke (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Absent sources demonstrating notability for the family itself, this needs to be deleted. WP:NOTINHERITED goes both ways—a person does not become notable simply by belonging to a notable family, and likewise a family does not become notable simply by having notable members. TompaDompa (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  Not true and easily fixed from russian literature. Axisstroke (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Upwave

Upwave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails the notability guidelines for companies. Sources are trivial (routine funding announcements), non-independent, or mention the firm only in passing (e.g. for the fact it conducted a survey).

A previous AfD exists under the firm's old name Survata, but the result doesn't seem to hold under modern corporate notability standards: the WSJ source is brief, routine coverage of a funding round, HuffPost is a contributor piece (no editorial oversight) and TechCrunch is... well, TechCrunch. (Yes, I checked for sources under "Survata" as well).

Ordinarily I'd redirect this to List of Y Combinator startups as an alternative to deletion, but given the name change I think it makes the most sense to retarget the existing redirect "Survata" there instead. – Teratix ₵ 14:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and California. – Teratix ₵ 14:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. An analysis of sources shows the following:

• This in Ad Exchanger doesn't have any content about the company, but at the bottom there's a link to this Announcement in Media Post on the name-change from Survata to Upwave, and this article relies entirely on information and quotes provided by the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
• This in USA Today quotes from a survey conducted by the company. It is a mere mention of the company name, contains no in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
• This in MrWeb regurgitates the exact same announcement as in the Media Post article above, also fails ORGIND
• The first TechCrunch article relies entirely on an interview with their cofounder and CEO, Chris Kelly and other information provided by the company. This is not "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND.
• This next TechCrunch article has 3 sentences about the company based on information provided at a "Demo Night". Insufficient in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH and also, this is not "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
• This is a Primary Source and is not an acceptable source for the purposes of establishing notability
• This next from MrWeb is based entirely on a company announcement, fails ORGIND
• Finally, the WSJ article is 4 sentences and is based on the company raising a seed round. This is not "Independent Content" nor in-depth, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.

In summary, none of the sources meet the criteria and I'm unable to locate any sources that do. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep and stubify, aggressively with great prejudice. "It is the leading Analytics Platform that provides software and data to plan, measure and optimize brand marketing" - holy slop Batman!!!!!!! There are indeed sources here that seem to show at least some notability. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, I think that it serves the public interest for Wikipedia to document what companies are and what they do and who funds them. The web is a freaky place with lots of shady players on it, and I feel like anything that helps people more effectively navigate the landscape of endless conglomerates and funding rounds and servers sending data to other servers sending data to other servers is good. The only concern is that these companies may use their Wikipedia articles as a form of advertising, which of course we should not permit. jp×g🗯️ 02:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Second Battle of Robotyne

Second Battle of Robotyne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

We do not need a page for every minor battle in this war. The bulk of the paragraph for the battle consisted of Russian Telegram links and ISW sources. The links to the ISW sources were dead, and I couldn't access which date the sources were coming from. The sources reporting the Russian capture of the town and second battle could easily be input into the page for Robotyne itself, as it doesn't have SIGCOV or notability in the sources mentioned to establish the second battle as it's own page.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, since we never created page for first battle of Robotyne during 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, but instead have a information in 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive and Robotyne pages so I don't think it will be necessary to create page for second battle of Robotyne either. Hyfdghg (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Tagging @Super Dromaeosaurus, @Alexiscoutinho, @Cinderella157, @RadioactiveBoulevardier, and @RopeTricks as they're all active in pages regarding the invasion of Ukraine. Jebiguess (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Draftify seems the best course of action for now. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I agree it is hardly notable and barely has a tactical or strategic importance. In fact, it's mostly a symbolic victory to undo the Ukrainian counteroffensive. If Russia reaches the trenches further north and levels the front, then we can start talking about some tactical notability. With that being said, I don't mind a draftification. And by the way, what's the deal with the generic dev-isw refs?! Where are the editors getting them from?! Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  According to the user @HappyWith, the ProveIt citation tool has a serious problem with ISW pages; see discussion 1, discussion 2, discussion 3. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, I see. Thanks! Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's terrible. I highly recommend someone contact the dev of the ProveIt code and try to get that fixed, because it's caused so many well-meaning editors - including myself several times - to unintentionally add completely useless, broken cites to articles about very important topics. HappyWith (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Agree, we don't need an article for every minor battle. We must weigh coverage against WP:NOTNEWS (routine coverage) when we are mainly confined to NEWSORG sources. Content is best placed at the town's article and potentially in a higher level article. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  In my view, this conflict in particular has revealed the limitations of NEWSORGs wrt fog of war. Hindsight, on the other hand is 20/20. A good example is Battle of Moshchun, which was only created eleven momths later. Follow-on sources can change the picture considerably. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete thank you Jebiguess for starting this AfD and for pinging me. I agree with the topic not being notable. The engagements during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive in Robotyne were much more notable, being the bulk of the counteroffensive at its later stages, and yet it doesn't have a page (nor should it have one). These engagements are significantly less notable and there isn't much distinguishing them from other Russian-led offensive actions in the frontline during this time other than the symbolic value. By the way, perhaps my sources of information on the war are biased, but as far as I know Robotyne hasn't fallen and has been subject to a back-and-forth, the contents of the article maybe contain original research. The start and end dates most likely do, as usual with these articles on minor engagements.

I personally don't care if the article is draftified but I really don't see it becoming an article ever in the future so we might as well not delay its fate and delete it. Super Ψ Dro 22:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think this is the right course of action to take. Yes, the sources are questionable, but I think the better solution is to find better sources and update information accordingly. And yes, it’s a minor battle tactically, but it’s an important battle symbolically, as the liberation of Robotnye was one of the only gains made during Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive. LordOfWalruses (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment expanding on my “draftify” vote…first of all the battle isn’t even over. And while the Russians may see it as merely a psychological thing, at least one Ukrainian source (Bohdan Myroshnykov) has written in strong terms that the defense of Robotyne is key to the defense of Orikhiv, much as Synkivka is key to the defense of Kupiansk. The idea behind draftifying is that drafts are cheap, and even though notability isn’t super likely to emerge from follow-on analyses, some material is likely be useful for related articles. I’ll address others’ points separately. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't oppose draftifying but I'm not certain of a benefit/distinction between that and moving relevant content to Robotyne for example (if not already there). For the benefit of others, retaining it as a draft (for now) does not imply it will become an article, only that it might become an article if good quality sources (rather than routine NEWSORG reporting) indicate long-term notability. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support deletion/merge: The Russian military's capture of Robotyne can be appropriately covered in a few sentences at the southern Ukraine campaign article; I find it unprecented, unwarranted, and undue to glorify this event with a standalone "battle" article. Best wishes to all editors involved SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Merge Compared to the Ukrainian capture of Robotyne during the 2023 counteroffensive, this battle is far less significant, and can be easily be covered in the larger Southern Ukraine campaign article. Gödel2200 (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Reading through all of the comments here, I see the strongest arguments for either Draftifying this article or Merging it. In both cases some content will be retained but the Merge option does require the effort on a knowledgeable editor now while a move to Draft space just relocates the article and the subject can be expanded at a later date should circumstances change.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Merge with Southern Ukraine campaign: The information is useful, but does not require its own article. Whatever can be reliably cited should be moved to the main timeline article. Draftifying is practically no different than outright deleting: I do not see WP:LASTING notability being established anytime soon, so the article will just end up being deleted in draftspace after 6 months. C F A 💬 20:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Jan Pawelec

Jan Pawelec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article of this Polish businessman, written like WP:PROMO, may fail WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Pawelec has never been elected to any public office nor has he even been a member of any Polish political party. My search do not show anything better than primary sources. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Bilateral relations, Politics, and Angola. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Likely a flawed translation of the Polish version, which has identical content. Sourcing might be largely in Polish and hard to find. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh

Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Opening this deletion discussion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE on the talk page (here). Would love to hear editors' thoughts going forward. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I would urge anyone who comments in this discussion to look on the talk page from (one of) the subjects of the article. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is too notable to delete. Maryam Rostampour is arguably notable as well, despite the fact that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is the only one of the two with continuing coverage. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Christianity, Islam, Iran, and Georgia (U.S. state). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Draft:Marziyeh Amirizadeh exists as a draft. Assuming that both women are notable, perhaps Draft:Marziyeh Amirizadeh could be added to article space after any necessary improvements are made, and this article could be moved to Maryam Rostamour-Keller (her current name), thereby preserving the edit history. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  If agreement is that there is enough information to split, I think this is a good idea. Otherwise, I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh's name be removed from this article per request and this article moved to Maryam Rostamour-Keller per your suggestion. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Split I think it is reasonable to have this specific article deleted. However, I would be open to the thought of having a separate article for Maryam Rostampour if she is notable enough. Marziyeh Amirizadeh on the surface level appears to be a notable figure (I have not done much research into her life though), so I would be more comfortable with having a separate article for her. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 18:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

A person claiming to be one of the subjects of the article requested that it be deleted because they don't want to be associated with the other person? The title is probably inappropriate and would be more appropriate as something else but this does appear to be a notable event. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note that the editor claiming to be the subject says on the talk page that she paid $300 to have her Wikipedia article written. Is this the current draft, created by an editor who has edited no other topic? PamD 22:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Federation of European Mineral Programs

Federation of European Mineral Programs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Engineering, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Move to European Mining Course Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

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. Hopefully, these new sources can find their way into the article, at least the ones that are reliable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Manyiel Wugol

Manyiel Wugol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don’t see how this subject article is notable. Not by anyway meeting the WP:GNG. On the reference section number 5. Instagram reels cannot be use as a source. His just an upcoming basketball player yet to gain fame and notability that meets the general notability guideline. Even the biography there’s no reference to back them up after making my research on Google. Gabriel (talk to me ) 02:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, and Basketball. Gabriel (talk to me ) 02:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sudan and Australia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG: The only potentially reliable source, the Herald sun article, does not mention his name. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 11:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, no significant independent coverage. Astaire (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, fails GNG. SportsGuy789 (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC) Changing to weak keep per the sources below. A couple of major Australian news outlets wrote articles on Wugol, which is good enough for me. I still think the article needs those references incorporated as in-line citations, not as a vague external link dump. SportsGuy789 (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Do not delete

I found over 5 reliable sources and news article about Manyiel Wugol which shows he’s a well known basketball in Australia . See below

https://pickandroll.com.au/p/bigger-than-basketball-manyiel-wugols

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8102113/sudanese-refugee-chases-basketball-dream-in-australia/

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/podcast-episode/unstoppable-african-australian-athletes-smashing-through-the-barriers/97b7l6fjq

https://thewest.com.au/sport/basketball/sudanese-refugee-manyiel-wugol-chases-basketball-dream-in-australia-after-death-of-close-friend-alier-riak-c-9888802 SportsFanatic220 (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further review of new soources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still waiting for a review of newly discovered sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

VanGrunsven RV-2

VanGrunsven RV-2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG, no mention in RS besides passing ones. Is not individually notable beyond its series. Air on White (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Engineering, Technology, Aviation, and United States of America. Air on White (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep -- the EAA video cited in the article has the interviewer ask the designer specifically about this design, and they discuss it in more than passing. The video from Van's about the restoration of another design which uses part of this design is also more than a passing reference, but since it's from the company themselves, it's not truly independent of the subject. In a case like this, where we have a series of 13 out of 14 closely-related articles that are all patently notable, and 1 out of 14 that's iffy, I think it makes sense to WP:IAR if we don't have the magic three sources.

[edit] Oh, and procedural note: this AfD and the nom's approach to a good faith mistake by the article's newbie creator[13] is one of the worst examples of biting I can recall seeing. And it appears to have worked; he hasn't edited since, nor responded to an attempt to reach out to him. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

When did U5-tagging an unsourced autobiography that promotes the author's resume become "biting"? Are we so scared of scaring off newbies that we allow whatever promotion and spam they insert? Has the blame shifted from spammers and COIS to the new page patrollers and admins who work the speedy deletion process? Air on White (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Please take some time to read over this section of the behavioural guideline and reflect a little. With behavioural guidelines, it's less about what you did, and how you did it. I completely believe that you acted in 100% good faith here, but the outcome was still a bad one for the newbie and for the project. I've done patrolling in the past, and I know what a grind it can be (and how valuable it is to the encyclopedia). But if sustaining that fight is taking its toll and leading to actions like this, it might be time for a rest for a while and work on writing about something that brings you joy and recharges you. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you concretely explain what I did wrong? How is this case is different from normal? Are you yourself aware of your patronizing, judgmental tone? Air on White (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very happy to dive into this in detail with you; but I'll take it to your talk page. I apologise if you don't like my tone; it's not my intention to come across that way. That said, there's a profound difference between two highly experienced editors communicating in a forum like this vs how a highly experienced editor with tools permissions treated a well-meaning newbie. I would additionally suggest however, that both your responses here confirm my impression that time on the front line might be taking a toll. More shortly in a different place.--Rlandmann (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to promote anything. I am content with my employment (i.e. not looking to get into anything else) and my company makes business-to-business products (i.e. it's not like a Wikipedia reader is going to decide to buy a cargo jet after reading that I work on them). I thought that writing about myself would (A) establish that I'm knowledgeable about my field (including awareness about good public sources to get relevant details from) and (B) show that I'm trying to be honest and to do things in good faith since I'm tying my actions on Wikipedia to my real name and career, not an anonymous pseudonym. But, ok, if there is no advantage to being a real expert rather than a random anonymous stranger on the internet, I can create a pseudonymous screen name instead and use that (other than for uploading images, which I do intend to retain ownership of). Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Now to the actual argument of the keep post. Interviews do not always contribute to notability. The Van's video most definitely does not count as a source as it is not independent at all - all company videos can be assumed to be promotional sources that do not undergo the rigorous fact-checking of RS. It provides 0 sources toward the "magic three." The only other source is the EAA video. Can you provide the timestamp of the interview where the RV-2 is mentioned? It is also equivalent to a serious, reliable documentary? At best, it is 1 source. No amount of invalid sources adds up to notability—0+0+0+...+0 = 0. This keep case stretches and twists policy—the independence of sources and the threshold of GNG—to shoehorn a topic of supposedly inherited notability into Wikipedia. Air on White (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

So, just verifying my own understanding here: when you opened this AfD and asserted that there were "no mention in RS besides passing ones", you had not actually viewed the sources? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep for now Comment. This article has only been here a few days. I think it's too early to judge what RS might or might not be out there. By all means tag it as short on RS, but deletion is premature. Having said that, Van's Aircraft's own puff about its planes starts with the RV-3, so seeking sufficient RS to support this article could be a fool's errand. Or maybe merging into Van's Aircraft will prove a good middle way. I'd suggest we revisit this in a month or so. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  [Update] See comment below following relisting, now that some of that time has passed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• I'm new to Wikipedia and I obviously can't claim to understand the rules and the culture thoroughly. If you guys decide that the article should be deleted, then, that's fine, do what you think is best.

FWIW, my rationale for creating the article was the following: Van's Aircraft is far and away the world leader in experimental airplanes, with over 11000 airplanes flying and countless others being built. When people in the aviation world first learn about Van's - or maybe after investigating RV airplanes for a while - the question naturally comes up: If it's so easy to find out about the RV-1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 15, then... What about the RV-2, 5, and 11? Now, again, I'm not 100% sure that Wikipedia is the place for (at least a very summarized version of) the answer, but... Firstly: Wikipedia already had an article for the RV-11 (which made it a little further in its construction but was also unfinished). And secondly: Wikipedia has countless articles about concept aircraft that never made it into the air, included in the encyclopedia because they're part of a series where people often wonder about missing numbers (The X-6 and X-54 didn't make it very far at all, and the X-33 and X-57 were cancelled after substantial prototyping and subsystems tests but before completion of the final vehicle), or because the development project was large and/or resulted in relevant technologies or partnerships or R&D later used for other things (National AeroSpace Plane, Boeing 2707, Lockheed L-2000, High Speed Civil Transport, Aerion SBJ and AS2...). So I figured, if all those X planes and supersonic transports that never made it off the drawing board all warrant Wikipedia articles (and the RV-11 apparently does too), then the RV-2 probably does too.

But, again, I'm new here, and if my reasoning goes against how you guys think Wikipedia should be run, then, do whatever you think is best. Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

In short: The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/Notability states, under "Projects and studies", that such aircraft "are generally discouraged unless reliable sources provide strong evidence that the project (...) is a significant project by a manufacturer of otherwise notable aircraft". It seems to me that the RV-2 and its article meet this criterion. Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I am so glad to see you back! I was really worried that we might have scared you off.

Note that that guideline is an unofficial one and does not trump the General Notability Guidelines. (It's also ancient and reflects Wikipedia practices from 10-15 years ago, so needs to be brought into line with current practice...) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the !votes thus far all favor keep, their arguments call for (reasoned) exceptions to policy/guidelines rather than basing themselves on it, so a relist to allow for further discussion seems appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

On a point of order, my "Keep for now" is based on Articles for deletion where it says; "Wikipedia policy encourages editors to use deletion as a "last resort" following attempts to improve an article by conducting additional research." (my bold). I am pointing out above that those attempts need time. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment -- I endorse User:Rosguill's summary of the situation. And, after further research and further discussion with the contributor, I'll add that it seems really unlikely that further RS will be forthcoming anytime soon. Based on the sources that we do have, then at worst, this material should be merged elsewhere. However, there's no clear, logical place to do that. In other, similar situations, we merge information about minor aircraft projects (particularly unbuilt or unfinished ones) into the article on a related design. However, in this case, this was a stand-alone design that isn't related to anything else that Richard VanGrunsven designed or built. Which means that his bio is the most obvious destination if we were to do a merge, but would create serious undue weight there. So yes, if we do decide to keep this information in a separate article, it is as an exception, and one based purely on information architecture, not on the Notability of this design per se. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Merge to Bio. Thank you for your additional research. I don't think your suggested merge to his bio would be unduly undue, as it were. There are several paras about his planes there and the meat of this one is really quite small. Alternatively, since the canopy was used for the VanGrunsven RV-5, it might be merged there, but I agree that is not very satisfactory. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [add clear !vote — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)]

• Merge (selectively) into Van's Aircraft#RV aircraft series as a premature SPINOFF without prejudice against a well-developed article. gidonb (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging everyone who wanted this merged: Rlandmann and Steelpillow. Best, gidonb (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks User:gidonb -- the problem here is that the RV-2 and RV-11 are not Van's Aircraft designs or products, and should be removed from that list ASAP. (I've left them there for now pending this discussion) Note how they're missing from the timeline graphic immediately below. Creating a similar list of all Richard VanGrunsven's designs in his bio would be one merge that could work and still avoid unduly unbalancing that article. I'd hate to lose the images of the RV-2 and RV-11 now that we have them though, and also don't want to dominate VanGrunsven's bio with a table of all his designs and pictures. If the outcome of this process is merge, maybe we should create a separate list article for all VanGrunsven's designs, with an image of each. I think that would cover all the concerns that have come up in this discussion. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep for now as the best way forward, given Rlandmann's input. gidonb (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Irina Nikolaeva

Irina Nikolaeva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: There appears to be a professor and a fashion model with this same name that pop up in the search for sources, but I have no idea if those are the same person. I find nothing about a figure skater; this fails notability, Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: The corresponding article in Russian has some decent coverage of this subject. At the very least, there is enough to meet WP:NBASIC. Let'srun (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If there are reliable sources you've found, please list them in this discussion or add them to the article, don't just allude to their existence,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Sources discussing the subject are found at [[14]], [[15]], [[16]] and [[17]] Let'srun (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  Nothing significant in any of those sources. #2 is a fan blog. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still seeking more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Of the sources linked by Let'srun above, 1 is a profile on the (defunct) website of her skating coach (and thus not independent), 2 and 3 are blogs, and 4 is not WP:SIGCOV. Sources in the article don't qualify toward WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT, and as nominator points out she doesn't meet WP:NSKATE. If more sources are found, please ping me and I'll take another look. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

2021 Ravanusa explosion

2021 Ravanusa explosion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Just a news story. All sources are news sources and it did not have any major societal ramifications to meet WP:NEVENT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Italy. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: There is further coverage on the Italian article, but if that's enough to pass NEVENT, I'm not sure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete. I genuinely don't remember what I was looking at here, did my brain make up sources? Doesn't pass nevent. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep there is coverage in international sources as well CNNNBCAl Jazeera. The fact that plenty of national sources RaiAnsa also reported on the following trial shows the depth and duration of coverage needed to fulfill WP:NEVENT. @PARAKANYAA: I would like to hear why you think the coverage is not sufficient to pass NEVENT. Broc (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Singara Chennai

Singara Chennai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No reliable reviews or other sources other than a single production source. A search in Sify ([18]), Chennai Online ([19]), and BizHat ([20]) proves futile. Please find the Kalki and Cine South reviews or redirect to Chennai as all online sources prove to be a description for the city. A WP:BEFORE found a fleeting mention here (சிங்கார சென்னை). DareshMohan (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Chennai: Per nom. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect to Kalabhavan_Mani#Tamil_films. Poor sources with no significant coverage and reliable critic reviews. RangersRus (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• I, the nominator, withdraw, my nomination in light of 3 new production sources. Thanks @Srivin:. DareshMohan (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus and two different redirect target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Not opposed to keep if sources covering production are judged sufficient; if redirected, Kalabhavan_Mani#Tamil_films is imv a much better target, but List of Tamil films of 2004#July—September (where it's also listed) would seem even more appropriate, as other cast members have a page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Dwaram Bhavanarayana Rao

Dwaram Bhavanarayana Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This seems to be a case of WP:INHERITED notability, given people largely talk about him in relation to his father. I can't check two of the sources here (and one is a WP:NOBITS) but the one I could find, as well as my searches of the internet returned no new sources for WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Music. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: I find this [21] and this [22] which I think is the same person that is the subject of the wiki article. Name or portions of the name seem to be very common, so it's hard to determine notability in sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Erel Segal

Erel Segal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST, WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV, just dummy articles! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, and Israel. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - a very well known and prominent journalist. The article has over a dozen sources, and I will shortly add more Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Kentucky Rain24, can you share your WP:THREE please? Journalists are among the hardest to research. gidonb (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• this provides an in depth look at Segal's political views and places them in the context of Israeli right wing media, and indicates notability beyond Israeli media
• this is a lengthy, in-depth interview dedicated to Segal, in Israel's highest circulation mainstream newspaper. This alone satisfies WP:SIGCOV.
• this provides English language coverage of a notable controversy he was involved with, showing notability beyond Israel (DW is a German broadcaster)

Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

#2 and #3 are not independent. BuzzFeed isn't very good but the journalist who wrote #1 is. gidonb (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Buzzfeed News is rated "green" and reliable on WP:RSNP. Why you'd think that ynet and deutsche welle are not independent of Segal is beyond me. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that these are interviews, quoted content, and shared sexism in a tv-show. Not independent content or SIGCOV. These media are actually good. Buzzfeed is acceptable because of the author. gidonb (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you are misreading the defintion of "independent" - ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent."- an interview with Segal is not produced by him but by the paper and journalist interviewing him.

Regardless, while the DW article includes a very short quote from Segal, it is neither an interview nor focused on that quote. Instead, it describes the controversy Segal was involved with, with other 3rd parties commenting about Segal. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll take another look and weigh again how much is independent content about Segal. Not ruling out any conclusion yet. gidonb (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: There's coverage that mentions him, such as the DW article, but these aren't about this person. This [23] also mentions him, but just barely as the article talks about his employer. We don't have enough substantial coverage to keep the article Oaktree b (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think that "mentions him, but just barely " is a fair assessment of [24] - the article is about an event in which he is the main subject - his employer suspended him for something he did. He is the subject of both the headline and the sub-headline, he is the main topic of the first and second paragraphs ("The Kan public broadcasting corporation on Thursday suspended one of its anchors because he appeared in a video"; "News presenter Erel Segal was suspended, pending further notice, after the video was uploaded to Netanyahu’s Twitter account earlier Thursday."), he is mentioned in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs and is the subject of the 5th, there's a quote from the PM of Israel about him etc... Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. A very well-known journalist in Israel, and there are many sources for this. In addition, he is also a writer (2 books) and a musician. (Full disclosure: I wrote the article). HaOfa (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Qiu Shi Science and Technology Prize

Qiu Shi Science and Technology Prize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article from 2012 tagged for speedy deletion 12 years later as unambiguous advertising (criterion G11). The article does contain some promotional language (e.g. "The Qiu Shi Foundation was named after the famous Qiu Shi Academy" and "Cha was best known for his industrial prowess, building a multinational textile conglomerate.") but this is mostly a stub article on a Chinese research prize where there are some examples of the awards being newsworthy, see e.g. [25]. However, while the awards have made it into some news articles, I am unable to determine the independence or reliability of these sources, and none of them are cited in the current article. The sources I have found are also much more about the person receiving the award than the award itself. While the promotional language is not severe enough for it to warrant a speedy deletion, I am bringing it to AFD and recommending delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and China. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Shen, Alice (2018-09-17). "Science prizes put technological innovation at the heart of China's progress. Prestigious Hong Kong science foundation rewards the brightest and the best". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

     The article notes: "A chemist from mainland China has won a major Hong Kong science prize for his leading global research in the field of bio-inspired nano-materials, highlighting China’s pledge to become an innovation hub in its own right. Jiang Lei received a grant of one million yuan (US$150,000) as winner of the Qiu Shi outstanding scientist award at a ceremony on Saturday night at the University of Science and Technology of China in Hefei, Anhui province. ... The prestigious Qiu Shi annual awards – qiu shi means “quest for truth” – was established by the late Hong Kong industrialist and philanthropist Cha Chi-ming, father of Payson Cha Mou-sing, in 1994 and features Nobel laureate Yang Zhenning on its judging panel. Previous Qiu Shi Award winners include Tu Youyou, who went on to receive the Nobel Prize in medicine for the discovery of artemisinin, saving millions of lives from malaria; Pan Jianwei, who later led the launch of the world’s first quantum satellite; and Zhang Yitang, who proved a theorem that had eluded mathematicians for more than a century. This year, in addition to the main prize, 12 outstanding young scientists were each awarded a US$90,000 grant, over three years, in recognition of their returning to China, with all their scientific potential, after overseas education or employment. ... This year, the number of recipients of the outstanding young scientist prize grew from 10 to 12, in line with the foundation’s aim of luring more talent back to China."

  2. "People's Daily article". People's Daily. 2005. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Google Books.

     The article notes: "“求是杰出科学家奖”由香港求是科技基金会的设,这一基金会由查济民及其家族于 1994 年捐资 2000 万美元设立表基金会奖项其后每年评选颁发次,致力于奖励科技领域有成就的中国科技人才,努力推动国家科技进步,已累计奖励了包括“两弹元助"和"神舟五号功臣在内的数百位杰出科学家和 35 岁的潘建伟教授在量子信息论和量子基本问题等世界学术前沿领域取得的一系列开创性成果,"

     From Google Translate: "The "Qiushi Outstanding Scientist Award" was established by the Hong Kong Qiushi Science and Technology Foundation, which was established by Cha Jimin and his family in 1994 with a donation of US$20 million. Chinese scientific and technological talents who have made achievements in the field of science and technology have worked hard to promote national scientific and technological progress, and have accumulated awards to hundreds of outstanding scientists including the "Two Bomb Yuanzhu" and "Shenzhou 5 Heroes" and 35-year-old Professor Pan Jianwei for his research in quantum information theory and A series of pioneering achievements in the world's academic frontier fields such as fundamental quantum problems, ..."

  3. Li, Lixia 李丽霞 (2019-09-22). Zhang, Yu 张玉 (ed.). "杨振宁获求是终身成就奖 系史上第二位该奖得主" [Yang Zhenning wins Qiushi Lifetime Achievement Award, becoming the second winner in history]. The Beijing News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Sina Corporation.

     The article notes: "据悉，香港求是科技基金会1994年由著名爱国实业家査济民先生创立，秉持“雪中送炭”的宗旨，积极坚持和倡导“科学精神，人文情怀”的核心理念。1994至2019年，共有358位在数学、物理、化学、生物医学及工程信息等科技领域中有杰出成就的中国科学家获得基金会奖励。其中“求是终身成就奖”2位，“杰出科学家奖”31位、“杰出青年学者奖”192位、以及 “杰出科技成就集体奖” 133位（涉及16个重大科研项目，如青蒿素、人工合成牛胰岛素、塔里木盆地沙漠治理、铁基超导、神舟飞船等）。"

     From Google Translate: "It is reported that the Hong Kong Qiushi Science and Technology Foundation was founded in 1994 by Mr. Cha Jimin, a famous patriotic industrialist. Adhering to the purpose of "providing timely assistance", it actively adheres to and advocates the core concept of "scientific spirit and humanistic feelings". From 1994 to 2019, a total of 358 Chinese scientists with outstanding achievements in science and technology fields such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, biomedicine and engineering information received awards from the foundation. Among them, there are 2 "Qiushi Lifetime Achievement Awards", 31 "Outstanding Scientist Awards", 192 "Outstanding Young Scholar Awards", and 133 "Outstanding Scientific and Technological Achievement Group Awards" (involving 16 major scientific research projects, such as artemisinin, synthetic bovine insulin, Tarim Basin desert control, iron-based superconductors, Shenzhou spacecraft, etc.)."

  4. Zhu, Lixin (2015-09-20). "TCM doctor receives 'grand award' from Qiu Shi foundation". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

     The article notes: "An 83-year-old Traditional Chinese Medicine doctor was among recipients of Hong Kong Qiu Shi Science and Technologies Foundation awards on Saturday. ... The Outstanding Scientific Research Team Award went to the Hepatitis E Vaccine team from Xiamen University，which invented the world’s first recombinant Hepatitis E Vaccine and made it available on the market in 2012. Ten other young scientists from seven universities and institutes received the Outstanding Young Scholar Award."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Qiu Shi Awards (simplified Chinese: 求是奖; traditional Chinese: 求是獎) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Cunard did a very thorough search of sources. However, I found the nominator's main concern is that many of the sources are about the award ceremonies and awardees, rather than the award itself. While the South China Morning Post and People's Daily sources provided by Cunard are indeed about the award itself, The Beijing News and China Daily sources seem to fall under what the nominator would consider as non-independent sources. Therefore, I found two additional sources from Guang Ming Daily[26] and Ta Kung Pao[27] which documented the founding of the award, and I believe these should be adequate to address the nominator's concerns. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 15:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 08:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep another easy @Cunard sourcing win, truly one of the GOATs of AfD. BrigadierG (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Disagreement

Disagreement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable topic Jax 0677 (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment this is a one-line WP:DICTDEF because nobody could agree on a redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Clearly something that should be redirected, but to what is the question. Disagreements (epistemology), Dissent, Objection (argument), Argument, etc. all seem like valid targets. Curbon7 (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete and then move Disagreements (epistemology) to this title because the subject of that article corresponds to this one. Use a hatnote to point to the other redirect targets mentioned byCurbon7. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear what the consensus is here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Disagreements (epistemology) has too many problems of its own to be the primary topic here. A broad-concept article at Agreement might be the best target; but I am not sure any redirect is better than the current quasi-DAB setup. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to any of the above choices. This article exists because nobody could what???????? 🤔

jp×g🗯️ 11:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Terwin (corporation)

Terwin (corporation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The Terwin corporation doesn't meet NCROP - no reliable independent of the subject sources; advertisement, Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles 鲁纳娄于 (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• The corporation is notable, it meets WP:ORGCRIT— it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the corporation. It is one of the biggest corporations in Ukraine with $1,6 billion assets and $1,7 billion revenue (2023). Before the Russian invasion, the revenue exceeded $2 billion. Nowadays, the corporation is building logistics hubs in four regions of Ukraine (Odesa, Lviv, Dnipro, Kyiv) with a total investment of more than $500 million. Of course, this and other activity of the corporation has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. --Perohanych (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  If so, share please 3 best sources meeting WP:ORGCRIT 167.86.184.60 (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  1. https://eba.com.ua/en/member/tovarystvo-z-obmezhenoyu-vidpovidalnistyu-tervin-grup/
  2. https://forbes.ua/news/spivvlasnik-eva-ta-varus-shostak-obednue-17-kompaniy-u-korporatsiyu-tervin-forbes-diznavsya-podrobitsi-27102023-16942
  3. https://biz.liga.net/ua/all/fmcg/novosti/spivvlasnyk-eva-stvoryv-korporatsiiu-tervin
  4. https://biz.nv.ua/ukr/economics/ruslan-shostak-pro-vartist-biznesu-vuhatogo-nyanyu-spivpracyu-z-armoyu-novini-ukrajini-50356744.html
  5. https://interfax.com.ua/news/investments/946886.html

  All of them can be considered as secondary, independent of the subject, and with quite significant coverage of the corporation.

  I am not sure if it is an extra argument, but simple Google Search gives 3800+ results --Perohanych (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep: per WP:NCORP. There is enough WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Most is in Russian or Ukrainian. See Google news. C F A 💬 16:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 12:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete none of the sources are deep enough or independent enough to establish the company notability per WP:NCORP. The article's author does not understand what reliable sources are. Google News is not a measure of notability. Every source should be analyzed, and I have done this, concluding that all the sources met in the page and here provided by the author, are only superficial mentions or routine announcements with no single source providing in-depth, independent media coverage. --182.53.28.77 (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  Well. Let's analyse every mentioned source:

  1. The text of European Business Association is entirely devoted to Tervin and provides enough about the size of the corporation.
  2. This text of Forbes is entirely devoted to Tervin. It contains an in-depth analysis of the corporation's composition, assets and revenue, as well as information about the founders
  3. This text of Liga is entirely devoted to Tervin. It contains an in-depth analysis of the corporation's history
  4. This text of New Voice is entirely devoted to Tervin. It contains an in-depth analysis of the largest companies that make up the corporation
  5. This text of Interfax is entirely devoted to co-operation of Tervin and the state Agency on investments.

  All the media are independent. There are much more sources --Perohanych (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 15:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Kicko & Super Speedo

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Kicko & Super Speedo
• Articles for deletion/Kicko & Super Speedo (2nd nomination)

Kicko & Super Speedo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. It lacks significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. The references cited are mainly announcements and TV schedules, which do not provide the necessary independent verification of the show's notability. It has "additional citations needed for verification" tag since May 2023. M S Hassan (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Sony_YAY!#Former_programming - Not opposed to Keep, see User:Eastmain's comment during 1st Afd.My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC) (the tag (fact that the page) (edited for clarity) "It has "additional citations needed for verification" tag, even since May 2023, indicates more a cleanup issue than a notability one).
• Redirect to Green_Gold_Animations#Television. RangersRus (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect to Green Gold Animations? Or to List of programmes broadcast by Sony YAY!?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different target articles proposed here for a possible Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd say redirect it to List of programmes broadcast by Sony YAY!. M S Hassan (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Notcoin

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Notcoin
• Articles for deletion/Notcoin (2nd nomination)

Notcoin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Procedural nomination per WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 11#Notcoin, as the redirect target of Telegram (software), or any other target, was not found suitable. The page had been moved to draftspace on the day of its creation, as not ready for mainspace, however the creator had rejected the draftification. Jay 💬 06:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Games, and Software. Jay 💬 06:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD before so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Merge to Telegram: Significant coverage in BBC Pidgin and likely in the non-English articles as well (which I cannot read). Telegram article is long but could easily accommodate a short section on the game, which seems to have drawn attention. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete what is this? A game? A crypto-coin? A ponzi scheme? The sources don't say (and are largely about a related game called "Hamster Combat"), which demonstrates that there is insufficiently substantial coverage. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I am opposed to a redirect to Telegram (software). If this content were on the Telegram article, I would remove it as WP:UNDUE and inherently somewhat promotional. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: The Persian article has همستر کامبت (Hamster Kombat) as the article subject: https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%87%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B1_%DA%A9%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A8%D8%AA Hamster Kombat and Notcoin seem like they are separate crypto games on Telegram? From machine translation and the images, the sources cited in the English article, like this one, appear to be about Hamster Kombat or crypto games in general, not about Notcoin. For a redirect, Telegram (software) seems an appropriate target. I'll abstain from voting, though, because I can't read most of the coverage on these games. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In the first AFD discussion, the closure was Delete but this discussion is bringing up more possible outcomes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to The Open Network (TON). The Persian-language sources seem to be primarily about a hamster-related game of a different name that employs the Notcoin/"Natcoin" token. But I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV for Notcoin itself, at least not in sources that clear WP:NCRYPTO; however, WP:TRADES sources ([28], [29]) do show evidence that it's a major game/token on TON, so as an AtD that redirect makes sense. Like Walsh90210 I would oppose a redirect to Telegram. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Yet more unimportant cryptotrash. Nate • (chatter) 16:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Stock exchanges of small economies

Stock exchanges of small economies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This page is confusion as small economies are not defined and so would make more sense to create an article for each country instead. I don't see how this article can be kept up to date and what should be included, would countries go in and out over time as their economies change? The current content is out of date, which could be fixed, but it comes back to the purpose of this article. I feel the best solution at this stage is to delete it. Sargdub (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• delete This reads more like a college econ paper, and even if there is something there (and again, this comes across as topic, if it be viable, for the main stock exchange article) WP:TNT seems like the best solution. Mangoe (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• keep Article cites 4 research papers and 16 references on the very subject. The article could use some work, but it is obviously an important subject of study in both econ and development. On the criticism that it cannot stay up to date - how is it different than anything on wikipedia? Valuable start to a complex subject. Keep. Spencerk (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete or redirect to Stock exchange: This can be discussed topic in a broader article, which should be easier to navigate for users anyway. Only one of the papers focuses specifically on stock markets in smaller countries, and none of them appear to be important enough to have inline citations in the article. Even if sourcing is improved, WP: TNT is relevant, and there would need to be a very compelling reason why this is easier to navigate than putting it in the main Stock exchange article. I also think the Keep vote above grossly exaggerates the quality of sourcing in the article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete or Redirect to Stock exchange My knee-jerk reaction is that I would love to read an article about how the stock exchanges of small economies are different from regular stock exchanges. It sounds educative and super neat. Upon viewing the article itself, however, that's not what it does. Upon a cursory look, almost all the sources cover individual stock exchanges, not small-economy stock exchanges as a concept. This article is arguably WP:OR for that reason. An article on small-economy stock exchanges could benefit the encyclopedia and its readers, but this is not that article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)