Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 6: Difference between revisions

Add links
Coordinates: 11°06′22″N 77°45′48″E / 11.10611°N 77.76333°E / 11.10611; 77.76333
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dracthyr}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franz Ketterer}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franz Ketterer}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cansolabao, Samar}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cansolabao, Samar}}<!--Relisted-->

Revision as of 19:01, 6 July 2024

< July 05 July 07 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge‎ to World of Warcraft: Dragonflight. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dracthyr

Dracthyr (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)

While the issue isn't one of conversation regarding the subject in the referenced media outlets, the problem is more one that the article's subject matter and reception is strictly within the scope of World of Warcraft: there is no indication of notability outside of that, discussion or examination. They are essentially less a fictional character race and more a gameplay mechanic that strictly matters within the context of the game itself. This is similar to how the previously AfD'd Gnasher Shotgun was strictly a gameplay element of Gears of War.

Attempts to try and find more sourcing proved fruitless, especially with Google Scholar. Additionally SUSTAINED is also a concern, as beyond the initial announcement the subsequent articles were in a short time span to each other. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not really sure how someone can look at the article and come out with "there are no reliable sources" "this lacks notability" besides a gross failure of WP:BEFORE. The Game Informer article, Polygon article, PC Gamer article, PCGamesN article and a 2nd Polygon article are all SIGCOV about the Dracthyr that easily exceed the threshold for GNG. As for the idea of "notability outside the scope of WoW", I'm not sure what policy this is trying to argue it violates; I suppose WP:INDISCRIMINATE? The article does discuss the "development, design, reception, significance, and influence" of the subject, and articles on fictional races are not uncommon. So how exactly is this different? It flummoxes me what the deletion rationale is here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am similarly flummoxed. Yes, a World of Warcraft race is discussed as part of World of Warcraft; being discussed in context is not a negative. Independent discussion on Google Scholar is unlikely, and not necessary to demonstrate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @User:Zxcvbnm Zx there are many times I've tried to assume good faith with you, but at no point did I say "there are no reliable sources" or even imply that. You have been on a *really* bad tear with bad faith lately. As it stands the point was that the article's reception is discussing a *fictional* race strictly in the context of a gameplay element. Key word: fictional. The sources you thumped there are all within the same short time span, and all examine the subjet in the scope of a *gameplay* element. There is no discussion regarding design or examination of them as a race. This is no different than trying to do an article on a Pokemon and strictly focusing on how good or bad it was in terms of gameplay for its particular generation. Any other fictional race article still illustrates some reaction or examination beyond just the gameplay element. Additionally User:Toughpigs at no point did I ascertain Google Scholar was the only outlet, just one observation that even there there was nothing as scholarly works tend to be a go-to on this subject. The problem is not that it's discussed in the context of WoW, but that it is *only* discussed in that context and strictly a gameplay context. If you're going to oppose that's fine but don't mischaracterize my argument.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, the argument they are only spoken of in gameplay terms is completely false; the last paragraph in the article argues the journalist's opinion that the Dracthyr were shoehorned into WoW's lore and story. I personally believe that specific discussion about their role in the story is not a necessary step to prove notability, but, even if it were, this would still pass by your very own criteria.
    I do admit that was not exactly what I meant, but it was not meant in "bad faith". I will edit it to clarify with better wording. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That by itself is at least something, but it still feels hard to justify a stand alone article on the subject (and strengthens Pokelego's point about it being a more viable merge into a Dragonflight article). SIGCOV is just one aspect of an article, but the actual content of a discussion needs to be considered. I feel sometimes you rush to make sure you have sources just to satisfy perceived policy, but itself isn't the only deciding factor on an article. Case in point, the recent discussion about Ornstein and Smough. It's not just about meeting that WP:THREE threshold. The reader neeeds to understand the significance of this subject with no prior knowledge to WoW or gaming too.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with World of Warcraft: Dragonflight. Basically every source in the Reception section is discussing how the Dracthyr affected gameplay of the game, but there's no indication of notability aside from that. The Dracthyr are essentially just a gameplay mechanic. Outside of a brief snippet of PC Gamer in the first paragraph and the Polygon source in the last paragraph, none of the sources are showing any impact of the Dracthyr outside of the context of World of Warcraft, and simply show the impact of the expansion they were introduced in on gameplay of the game. It feels more logical to me this is covered at the Dragonflight article, since basically everything about the Dracthyr are in the context of Dragonflight. Someone curious about the Dracthyr's impact on the game are better off going to what actually changed the game, instead of a gameplay mechanic that is part of the expansion. I'm not opposed to this being split out if more sources proving notability separate from the expansion are found, but right now there's really not that much. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, there is literally commentary on how they impact the game's plot. The "just a gameplay mechanic" argument does not hold any water. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated in my vote, there is very little sourcing showing considerable impact. Just because there are two sources is not enough to separate the concept from the base expansion, and can easily be included in the Dragonflight article, where the bulk of this information is most relevant. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles being written on the race is in itself proof of outside impact, just as reviews of games are. Playing as the race has impacted someone enough to critique it. Suggesting that an article's subject must be discussed in a scholarly context to be viable as a standalone page is plain ridiculous and there is no policy like this. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's inherently true. For example, Pokémon species routinely get articles about them, but we understand that as routine coverage, much like how we may consider it routine coverage to discuss the impact of a new race or class in an MMO. What outside impact is demonstrated in the sources? Every source is written in a comparatively short period of time, and they're all written in the context of how the Dracthyr impacts the expansion. Are there any articles that go outside the initial period the articles listed are written in? For an MMO, the notion that this race is discussed only in a seven-month period feels like it speaks little of its independent notability. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Pokelego999. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The sources seem to treat Dracthyr as a gameplay mechanic first and foremost, which is not compelling to me that this is a significant subject beyond significant as part of Dragonflight. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with World of Warcraft: Dragonflight: per above. C F A 💬 02:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ's sourcing. The GNG is met, and arguments that this is a gameplay mechanic first and foremost aren't germane to whether it has garnered multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources. I'm not opposed to an editorial merge, and it's a far superior ATD to deletion, but such a merger should not be forced by AfD when the sourcing is sufficiently robust to support a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:MERGEREASON and WP:NOPAGE. Just because a subject might be notable doesn't mean it needs its own article unless it's truly holds its own, which this does not. Taking a read for it myself, it seems to require a proper understanding of World at Warcraft, which violates MOS:VG and could stray into fandom territory. I don't see why the material from this page couldn't be merged into World of Warcraft. λ NegativeMP1 16:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Press quotes about how good an in-game ability feels might belong in the reception about the game, at most. Even something like Mario jump doesn't have its own article, despite its mention in lots of sources. There is a clear merge target for this gameplay at World of Warcraft: Dragonflight, as an WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point out where the "game guide" is within the article, and how each of the aforementioned above sources are trivial coverage? It contains no "how to" content for how to play the game, only an analysis of a particular race/class from a critical and development perspective. I would like more of an explanation as to how these are insufficient rather than a WP:VAGUEWAVE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not vaguewave, so I don't know why you're claiming that the user was doing that. They explained why they felt it wasn't in adherence, you disagreeing doesn'r make it vague. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 18:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Ketterer

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

Article about an obscure subject that does not seem to be notable outside of some (likely incorrect) mentions that he invented the cuckoo clock. I cannot find sufficient sourcing to improve the article. Mbdfar (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: Most sources online are clock stores and blogs which are not reliable. There are quite a few hits on Google books that claim he did indeed invent the cuckoo clock, some written in in the 1800s, so I do not entirely believe it is a myth that has just propagated around the internet. The article is obviously WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; it would have to be rewritten and appropriately sourced. I believe the subject probably is notable if he did invent the cuckoo clock, I just don't think there's enough coverage to write an article claiming he did without WP:OR. With the coverage that I have found, the article would amount to nothing more than a short stub stating something like "Franz Ketterer was a German clockmaker who may have invented the cuckoo clock." If someone does look through Google books or elsewhere and finds even a bit more in-depth coverage, I will change my vote to keep. C F A 💬 02:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Thanks to Cielquiparle for improving the article.
  • Keep and keep improving. Article was in dismal shape so have performed WP:TNT and rewritten with citations. Meets WP:GNG although the article is more about the historiography rather than a biography per se (not uncommon, the further back in history you go). While not every history mystery is worthy of a Wikipedia article, this one is because the village of Schönwald and other entities continue to promote the Franz Ketterer story. Good article to have flagged for cleanup, now we can keep improving. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cansolabao, Samar

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

Does not have any notability and has no sources. TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Karl of Hesse

Prince Karl of Hesse (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. Sources include passing mentions in a couple of books about other people and a self-published fansite. DrKay (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The only item that get somehow significant coverage was his marriage. Therefore this is a case for WP:ONEEVENT and this only got attention because of the attending guests, not the couple itself. So, no notability. -- Theoreticalmawi (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The several book notices of the subject pass WP:Basic. Axisstroke (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder how you come to "serveral" book notices? 2 of the 4 books (with one listed double) are simple name directories, one is covering his father (with one trivial mention, that his father choosed the name "Adolf" for him to honor Adolf Hitler). I was not able to get access to the fourth book but given the sourced information and the title of the book, his coverage there is not substantial either. So, there is at maximum one book, which is very clearly about a differnt person. How can this add up to "significant coverage"? --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets at least WP:Basic. The fact that the wedding was attended by notable people is an indication of societal notability which also attracted media attention. And being cited in multiple books is an indication of notability even if he is not the subject of those books. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Arsène Lupin#Overview. Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Balsamo

Josephine Balsamo (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. Possible merge/redirect to Arsene Lupin or Maurice Leblanc, but not sure which. All information is unsourced too, so I am not sure it would be a valuable merge. Boleyn (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Arsène Lupin#Overview, where she is briefly mentioned. The current article is completely unsourced, and searching is not bringing up anything but brief mentions in plot summaries, such as in the book discussed above. Since there is no "character list" for the Lupin series, and the original story she appeared in does not seem to have its own article, redirecting to the main page where she is briefly mentioned appears to be the best viable target. Rorshacma (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. At this point there is a consensus the article should either exist or should be merged. Since consensus for which of those options is better can be finalized outside of AfD, I am closing this as keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of women bishops in the Anglican Church of Australia

List of women bishops in the Anglican Church of Australia (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:NLIST with no evidence that reliable, secondary, independent sources discuss Australian female Anglican bishops as a group versus discussing them individually. (The sources listed under "Further Reading" describe the experiences or cover women clergy more generally or all women Anglican clergy in Australia, not just bishops. The one exception, a book by Muriel Porter is not an independent source, as Porter is an elected member of the Anglican Church's governing synod and described in her Wikipedia article as an "advocate" who is "active in campaigning" for women's ordination in the church.) Meanwhile, the page fails WP:NOPAGE as a WP:CONTENTFORK of List of female Anglican bishops. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree with most of the points you make as reasons for deletion. For example I don't think there needs to be one source dedicated to just female Anglican bishops in Australia, but a source can cover bishops in the Anglican communion generally as well as other clergy. The only point I can see as valid is that the list could be seen as a content fork of List of female Anglican bishops. I admit I only saw that other list after I created this one. In the case of it needing to be merged I think it would have been better to message me or put something on the Talk page about merging rather than marking it for deletion. I have marked this comment as Keep for now only to see if other editors want to comment. However if there is enough support to merge List of women bishops with List of female Anglican bishops... I am happy to do that and I will then continue to update the List of female bishops with the Australian ones because that is one of my areas of focus on wikipedia.LPascal (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extra comment: In case I am asked to find more sources on women bishops, I'm sure I could find one here on this list but I don't have time to do that just now https://search.worldcat.org/lists/1b9e2384-b013-48e0-b45b-911ee8d3ca3f And I think it would be impractical to expect to find a source who was a journalist or historian writing about the Anglican church who was not in some way connected to the church. If anyone writes about ordained women in the Anglican church it is usually because they are for or against and rarely are they "independent". LPascal (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extra comment: I have just found a load of newspaper articles dating back to at least early 2000s discussing women bishops as a group in the Anglican Church of Australia, so I could add those into the sources or Further reading if anyone thinks they will be better as reliable, secondary, independent sources that support a freestanding list of women bishops in Australia. Here's just a few but I will wait for consensus before I add them to a list.https://www.news.com.au/national/anglicans-elect-first-woman-bishop/news-story/670c8cfb59e29dc6a251374541369c8b https://tma.melbourneanglican.org.au/2024/04/one-in-six-diocesan-assistant-bishops-a-woman-across-australia/ https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria-rebels-on-women-bishops-20031012-gdwiyd.html https://www.theage.com.au/national/women-bishops-a-step-closer-20030704-gdvzja.html https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-09-30/division-remains-after-way-cleared-for-female/685088 LPascal (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a merge to List of female Anglican bishops as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per WP:HEY, if any only if the sources found are added. Bearian (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Thanks Bearian for the Keep. I am happy to both keep the article/list or merge it with List of female Anglican bishops. If consensus is reached on Keep I will certainly add in more refs to show women bishops in Australia are much discussed as a group. If the agreement is to merge, I will add them into the List of female Anglican bishops. If I merge the lists, whoever is responsible, please do not delete the old one until I have added names and refs to the LOFAB. As some of the bishops will not yet be bluelinked because they won't have an article, I will need to keep the refs in the list to show they are bishops.
    On that note Dclemens1971 whatever happens to the two lists, I would appreciate your help in creating articles for the new women bishops as your user page states you focus on bishops on Wikipedia. I've been waiting for another editor to create articles for those three women bishops, but no one has started one yet, unless it's in someone's sandbox. LPascal (talk) 07:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muuse Ismaciil Qalinle

Muuse Ismaciil Qalinle (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)

Contested PROD. The sources do not demonstrate notability under WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, or WP:NMUSIC. (The first source is some kind of WP:USERGENERATED list of MP3 files, the second source has a single WP:TRIVIALMENTION of the subject, and the third fails verification entirely, referencing an entirely different individual with the patronym "Qalinle.") Edited to add: an editor has added a reference to Somali Culture and Folklore, pages 63-64. I do not believe this is a valid reference; the book itself is 64 pages and according to Google Books pages 63 and 64 appear to be index pages; Qalinle does not appear as a search term. Additional qualifying sources were not found in my WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no sources that even mention this person. A Google search turns up only Wikipedia mirrors, social media, and lists of songs. CodeTalker (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2011–12 figure skating season#Ice dance 4. Liz Read! Talk! 21:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yevhen Kholoniuk

AfDs for this article:
Yevhen Kholoniuk (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 skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2011-2012 figure skating season#Ice dance 4 or to 2011–12 ISU Junior Grand Prix#Ice dance, possibly to another table in those articles. Doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. Tau Corvi (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 19:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Messhof

Messhof (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 notability for a biography. See talk page for prior discussion, I think anything relevant here is feasible to merge into the game articles. IgelRM (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. IgelRM (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Messhof is a single game dev, so the article passes the subject-specific notability criteria at WP:NARTIST. He "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". He has several independently notable games, and Ghost Bike is also likely to be notable upon release. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A "single game dev" exception seems arbitrary. What specifically, a collective body of work? I can see Nidhogg as a two part series but Ghostbike would appear independent and WP:TOOSOON. I would create a category with the game articles. IgelRM (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking for "Mark Essen" instead of "Messhof" I have found dozens of articles about how he has been one of the few game devs to be recognized as an artist by the art establishment with his games being placed in various art galleries. This also passes the criteria "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did Messhof get significant coverage at those exhibitions? "Recognition" would fit for Video games as an art form but I don't think they pass the criteria. IgelRM (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @IgelRM, the rule of thumb we typically use for creators is "two or more independently notable works". Basically, if there's only one notable work, we could easily add the biographical detail to that article rather than having a separate creator article. If there's more than one, or there's just so much coverage about both creator and work, then it makes more sense to have multiple authors. Since we have Nidhogg (video game), Nidhogg 2, and Flywrench, it's more convenient to have a separate article for the creator. -- asilvering (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With that role of thumb, I think e.g. every game director at Nintendo would be notable. IgelRM (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If every game director at Nintendo was a solo game dev, yes, they would be. However, they are not. -- asilvering (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, source 3 is two photos and captions, nothing extensive. Source 7 is mainly an interview with this person; rest used in the article are only mentions of this person... Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't find anything else about this person that isn't already in the article, and the sources aren't all about this person, or are trivial coverage. Just not enough to prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject's works are clearly the focus of multiple, reliable, independent sources, passing the general notability guideline as a creator. Our articles on his works (Nidhogg (video game), Flywrench, Nidhogg 2) each have sources covering his role in creating them. Additionally, reliable sources have also covered his other works not independently notable, such as Punishment 2[1] and Ghost Bike[2][3]. There is enough reliable source coverage of these other games that they wouldn't fit in an existing article and so the developer's own article is a natural place to cover them. czar 02:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Czar. --Un assiolo (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pro forma note that Czar is the article creator. What I get out of the rockpapershotgun article is that Messhof created freeware games prior to Nidhogg with a similar aesthetic. IgelRM (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also wrote the GA for Nidhogg (video game). Yes, the detail of those freeware games and the background on what became his most notable games are what justifies an independent article to house those details. czar 04:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah; I guess I am being bold here, you have more editing experience than me. Right now, the details are basically only the game names, not even release years.
Edit: Hhm, if it wasn't structured as a bio and incorporated Flywrench, maybe it would make sense to me. IgelRM (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Chinese Figure Skating Championships#Ladies. Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Qingyun

AfDs for this article:
Wang Qingyun (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 skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chinese Figure Skating Championships#Ladies. Doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. Tau Corvi (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to ISU Junior Grand Prix in Croatia#Women's singles. Liz Read! Talk! 05:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veronika Kropotina

AfDs for this article:
Veronika Kropotina (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 skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ISU_Junior_Grand_Prix_in_Croatia#Women's_singles. Achievements are insufficient to meet WP:NSKATE. I have not found any secondary sources that speak directly about her, only mentioning her in passing. By the way, references 1 and 3 do not work, and 2nd gives meager performance statistics. Tau Corvi (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Slovakia at the 2014 Winter Olympics#Luge. Liz Read! Talk! 21:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Solčanský

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

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2014 Winter Olympics#Luge as ATD because I could not find any in-depth coverage about this luger to meet WP:GNG. All I found on news websites were passing mentions of his participation at the tournament. He was not even on top three luge winners. This article has been deleted from Slovak Wikipedia on 18 November 2018, possibly due to BLP concerns. The only interlanguage wiki available is Norsk Bokmål (Norwegian) Wikipedia but it listed exactly the same sources as the English article. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above or to Luge at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Doubles#Results. Doesn’t meet WP:SIGCOV. Tau Corvi (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested as an AtD. We've been presented with sporting results, and from that we're supposed to build a biography of a living human being? WP:SPORTSPERSON requires at least one source which directly details the subject. Nothing like that here. BusterD (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nuckle Brothers

Nuckle Brothers (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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There's the 50 words in the OC Weekly article that's linked already, and there are mentions in student newspapers like the Daily Titan ([4], [5], [6]), but they can't establish notability. toweli (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Kinross

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

Does this even pass WP:GNG? The current references are certainly nowhere near up to scratch. One hit on Google News. Uhooep (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodia's Kitchen

Cambodia's Kitchen (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 orphan article. Getting 2 reviews in the Melbourne press really isn't a big claim for notability as per WP:AUD. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Rodell, Besha (2022-08-30). "Cambodia's Kitchen brings a taste of Cambodia to the CBD". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

      This review appeared in both The Sydney Morning Herald's Good Weekend magazine and in The Age here. The review notes: "My worry is that many of the dishes that really set Cambodian cuisine apart aren't represented here. I was hoping to find amok, or nom banh chok, a fragrant fish, coconut and noodle soup. ... But there are vast differences between Cambodia's Kitchen and many of the other nearby quick-service noodle joints. Everything here is made in-house, including the beef balls and fish cakes, things that almost universally come from a packet."

    2. "Australia Travel: Best places to eat in Melbourne". The New Zealand Herald. 2022-11-20. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

      The article provides 144 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "I love discovering cuisines that are under-represented back home and Melbourne offers plenty of that. Cambodia’s Kitchen is the only Cambodian eatery in the central city and when I visited, it was well-patronised by Khmer-speaking customers. The noodle soups are signature here, and I was chuffed with my pick of beef noodle soup – a thick and aromatic broth packed with a very generous serving of slow-cooked succulent chunks of beef shin as well as tendon, tripe, and housemade bouncy beef balls."

    3. Monssen, Kara (2022-11-16). "Cambodia's Kitchen review 2022: Chinatown newcomer behind city's great-value lunch spot". Herald Sun. Archived from the original on 2023-07-02. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

      The review notes: "Linna and brother Ivanra keep it simple at their Russell St restaurant. Think 44 seats inside a ho-hum dining room, flanked either side with decorative awnings and ornamental wicker lamp shades overhead. A soundtrack of Selena Gomez and Taylor Swift buzzes from the speakers. The menu has photos of each dish and is printed out and slotted into a plastic display folder."

    4. Sweet, Frank (2023-06-30). "Melbourne's best hot pots". Time Out. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

      The review provides 167 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "If there’s a hot pot you’re yet to try on this list, it’s probably this one. Fairly new to the scene having opened in 2022, Cambodia’s Kitchen is still regarded as a well-kept secret among hot pot lovers and multiculturally adventurous foodies alike. The cosy Russell St restaurant serves authentic classic Cambodian fare, a rich noodle soup (kuyteav) being undisputedly the star of the entire operation and what many street vendors in Phnom Penh typically sell for breakfast."

    5. Curran, Libby (2022-08-18). "Cambodia's Kitchen Is the New CBD Restaurant Paying Homage to Classic Cambodian Fare". Concrete Playground. Archived from the original on 2024-07-04. Retrieved 2024-07-04.

      The review notes: "Here at Cambodia's Kitchen, the Huns' long-held family recipes and use of traditional techniques deliver an accurate reflection of what's being cooked up on the streets of Phnom Penh. Linna's menu draws plenty of inspiration from her own mother's and grandmother's cooking. The signature Cambodian rice noodle soup is the hero offering — a pork broth base loaded with minced and sliced pork, pork liver, and homemade beef balls, fish balls, fish cake and pork loaf."

      • HereInternet Archive is Concrete Playground's editorial policy. Here is information in the editorial policy that supports its being reliable:
        1. Its editor is Samantha Teague.
        2. "Concrete Playground is Australia's fourth largest independently-owned digital publisher (Nielsen Market Intelligence, July 2018),"
        3. "All facts need to be thoroughly checked by both writers and editors before publishing — we have a duty to our readers to provide them with well-researched, accurate information."
        4. "Direct quotes cannot be altered, and subjects do not have any approval over their quotes."
        5. "Corrections will only be made to a published piece if something is found to be factually incorrect. If a change is made to a published article, a dated amendment will be added to the footer to acknowledge the original piece has been edited."
        6. "All writers must disclose any possible conflict of interest on any piece of work they submit. This must then be disclosed at the footer of the published piece."
        7. "We regularly critique restaurants and bars, and cultural events. These judgements are entirely our own and are only made after experiencing the subject first-hand. All positive and negative feedback must be backed up by reasoning."
        8. "Opinion pieces (including our restaurant and film reviews) are entirely independent and are never produced in partnership with a third party."
        Concrete Playground is cited as a source by a number of books, which also supports its being reliable. Here are the publishers and links to the books that cited Concrete Playground: Academic Press (1), Johns Hopkins University Press (1), Routledge (1 and 2), Taylor & Francis (1), and Text Publishing (1).
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cambodia's Kitchen to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract differential geometry

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

WP:OR: All this stub is based on 4 primary sources that have the same first author

WP:ORPHAN: All incoming links from the main space are in "See also" sections or in a stand-alone list. Apparrently, the only reason of these links is de-orphanization. D.Lazard (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would lightly support deletion. On Google Scholar, the "Geometry of vector sheaves" book has been cited 137 times, although the majority appear to be self-citations or citations of the form "for work on this related topic, see the book Geometry of vector sheaves". As far as I can tell (but without confidence), the topic is not of major research interest. Gumshoe2 (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you did not find any reliable WP:secondary source that discusses the subject. D.Lazard (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to say anything definitive yet, but a first pass through the citations to both books has an anomalously high level of dubious sources: MDPI journals, unreviewed preprints, etc. In any case, this stub has been functionally abandoned since 2009, and the creator has not edited since 2010, so working on it doesn't seem to be anyone's top priority. XOR'easter (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Cebu. Content is there should anyone wish to Merge any of it. Liz Read! Talk! 19:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Cebu

Outline of Cebu (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'd blank and redirect, but it seems an unlikely search term. I simply fail to see what pupose this article serves; there is already an article on Cebu. TheLongTone (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cebu. Procyon117 (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 02:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Gdeszyn

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

Poorly referenced, only one source says that such a "battle" existed and moreover the source is completely biased for the Ukrainian side. No polish sources or books talk about such a Battle of Gdeszyn . Fajowy (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply[reply]

I support this article is based on one sentence from Volodymyr Viatrovich's book which talks about this battle and nothing more and he is considered even for pseudo-historic AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Interesting topic but needs independent sources to establish notability and verify facts. Right now this seems sourced significantly to old wartime reports and documents (WP:PRIMARY? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. A single source, a primary too, is insufficient to establish the notability of the event.- Altenmann >talk 22:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Firefly (film series) characters

List of Firefly (film series) characters (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 meet WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN and CAT:UNREF for years. Possible redirect to TV series, but unsure merge is a good WP:ATD as this is all unsourced. Boleyn (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Audiovisual archive. Owen× ☎ 17:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Video logging

Video logging (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)

Bereft of encylopedic content, while the term is cleary genuine it's also pretty self explanatory (that video logging is the logging of video, thank you wikipedia). Reads somewhere between a how to guide and veichle for spam. Article isn't serving any purpose not met by Digital asset management, Content management etc. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 10:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Assam separatist movements. There is a strong consensus below not to retain (merge + delete + a handful of draftify). Merge both has a slightly stronger support base, but also a justification as a valid WP:ATD. This is clear option forward based on the consensus. Daniel (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swadhin Axom

Swadhin Axom (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. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, India, and Assam. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete/Repurpose Dratify EDIT: vote changed since one source shows potential, see below;/ @Flyingphoenixchips, moving the discussion here in the appropriate discussion channel. The movement for an independent Assam might pass WP:GNG and be worth an article. However, it should be an article about the movement, not a proposed state- and it needs to be supported by sources that talk about "Swadhin Axom" as an idea specifically rather than as an alternative name for Assam used by those who want independence. If you believe there are many sources in Google, then WP:DOIT and fix this article. We don't do original research on wikipedia. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey thanks, the sources I mentioned do support it as an idea, and not as an alternative name. All sources are listed in the reference page. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In no way was the article I have written am original research. Additionally many such articles on proposed states exist, and a separate category in wikipedia exists as well. Will those pages be deleted or just this, since its against a particular POV Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Swadhin Axom was never used as an alternate name for assam. Swadhin means Independent and the proposed independent state is just refered to as Assam or Axom- both are the same literals. Swadhin axom is used by academics to describe this proposed state. Ref: Prafulla Mohonto, Proposal for Independence. Would suggest you to read it Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To maintain neutrality, would suggest editing existing articles based on your arguments, using credible sources, instead of plain WP:I just don't like it. Wikipedia should never become a battleground of political ideologues. If you read the article its neutral, you can add additional pointers in the article, if you have sources for the same. Thanks Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't accuse me baselessly of just not liking it.
    You mentioned a google search, another wikipedia article and its sources on the Talk page- that's not enough when the question is whether "Swadhin Axom" as a concept should be a WP:CONTENTFORK from Assam. Wikipedia's neutrality policy is not about giving equal weight to every political opinion. It also doesn't say that we should have a different article for every political way of looking at something.
    Sources and GNG
    Now let's look at the actual sources in this article:
    • Source 1 - Ivy Dhar has extensive discussion of the idea of Swadhin Axom, specifically in relation to the ULFA and nationalism
    • Source 2 - Nipon Haloi only mentions it once
    • Source 3 - Dutta & Laisram only mention it once
    • Source 4 - Udayon Misra only mentions it once
    • Source 5 - Not only does Santana Khanikar only mention it once (outside of the glossary), she proceeds to call the proto-state as simply the ULFA instead of Swadhin Axom.
    • Source 6 - Swadhin Axom is only mentioned as part of the title of a speech
    • Source 7 - Does not mention it
    • Source 8, 9 and 10 - Does not mention it- all about the 1970s Assam Movement
    • Source 11 - Does not mention it
    • Source 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 - Does not mention it, not even in the entire book of Source 17. These are all about the 1970s Assam Movement
    • Source 18 - cannot access myself but also looks like a book entirely about the Assam Movement
    • Source 19, 20, 21, 22 - Does not mention it
    • etc. etc.
    Now, I couldn't keep going through the remaining 40+ sources but this is only to highlight one issue: the article doesn't really meet WP:GNG standards. Not every sources need to meet WP:GNG, but there should be at least one to establish that the article is notable. Source 1 is a good source for this article, and there may be more in the 40+ citations I couldn't get to.
    However, I would still delete this article and draftify it (I changed my vote) because:
    WP:V - Verifiability
    Just from the first 20, I suspect a lot of these sources were thrown on there because they came up in the Google Scholar search for "Swadhin Axom". Wikipedia requires that the content be verified based on the content of the sources. We don't do original research by giving our own analysis of the source.
    For specific example, let's take the sentence "Figures like Bishnu Prasad Rabha, a multifaceted artist and social reformer, Tarun Ram Phukan, a prominent political leader, and Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, a key figure in the Assam Movement and a former Chief Minister of Assam, have played crucial roles in advancing the cause of Swadhin Axom" It's supported by Sources 14-18. If you will recall from my list above, these are all about the 1970s Assam Movement that don't mention the idea of Swadhin Axom. If Swadhin Axom is really not just a local name for the English phrase 'independent Assam', then you would need a source to connect Swadhin Axom and the Assam Movement, instead of providing the original analysis that the Assam Movement was an important part of the Swadhin Axom proposed state.
    I will reiterate that I think that the article Assamese nationalism would make more sense for the sources you are using. If the article is just about providing more WP:NPOV perspectives about Assam- those should go in the Assam article. If this article is supposed to be about a proposed state it needs to show that the proposed state is a proposed state. From what I see, it might be better focused on the ULFA explicitly, their governing structures etc. In its current state, this article is not fit for mainspace. And it's not because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 00:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your careful work in checking all the sources. But I am not convinced that the single source (Ivy Dhar) that you mention can save the article. First of all, the source is a Master's thesis, which is normally not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Secondly, it is only a small section (4.04) that discusses the concept, and it does so in the context of Assamese nationalism and most of the section deals with ULFA, both of which already have their own pages on Wikipedia. I don't agree that this source establishes "Swadhin Axom" as an independent topic that merits its own page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes- I'm saying that it can be draftified and potentially reworked into an article actually about the specific idea- based on assuming good faith that maybe one of the 40 sources I didnt check have something useful. Not particularly opposed to deletion, and if there are no other sources this should be a section of Assamese nationalism as you propose.
    A master's thesis is a reliable source- the policy you link to cautions against blimdly accepting since many theses do original research and are therefore sometime primary sources. But that's not the case here where the author is describing existing sentiment, not coming up the idea of Swadhin Axom outright. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright let me have a look a this article again, and try finding secondary articles on the idea. However i don't feel this should be merged with the ULFA page as its solely not connected to ulfa, and is something like Dravida Nadu Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the article is WP:SYNTH. United Liberation Front of Asom could be a redirect target ... but this title is misspelled (Axom instead of Asom). Walsh90210 (talk) 04:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to disagree, since the idea of "Swadhin Axom" (Independent Assam) deserves nuanced understanding and should not be exclusively linked to the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA). While ULFA has prominently championed this cause of an independent Assam through armed struggle, the concept of Swadhin Axom encompasses a broader spectrum of historical, cultural, and socio-political aspirations that predate and extend beyond ULFA's formation. Also both Axom and Asom are used, you will find articles using both the terms.
    Pre-ULFA Aspirations: The desire for a distinct Assamese identity and autonomy can be traced back to the colonial and pre-colonial eras. Movements and sentiments advocating for Assam's self-determination existed well before ULFA's establishment in 1979 (Guha, 1991, 56). Cultural and Ethnic Diversity: The idea of Swadhin Axom also reflects the rich cultural and ethnic diversity of the region. It includes the voices of various indigenous communities who have sought to preserve their unique identities and heritage (Baruah, 2005, 112).
    Political Autonomy Movements: Throughout Assam's history, various groups and political entities have called for greater autonomy and recognition of Assam's distinct status within India. These movements have often been peaceful and democratic, emphasizing dialogue over armed conflict (Misra, 2012, 143).
    Both of the 3 papers are important sources
    Therefore, I propose renaming the Wikipedia article to "Proposal for Swadhin Axom" instead, because it is of relevance to the geopolitics concerning greater southeast asia as well
    Ref:
    Baruah, Sanjib. Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of Northeast India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2005.
    Dutta, Anuradha. Assam and the Northeast: Development and Conflict. Guwahati: Eastern Book House, 2010.
    Goswami, Priyadarshini. Ethnicity, Insurgency and Identity in Northeast India. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2001.
    Guha, Amalendu. Planter Raj to Swaraj: Freedom Struggle and Electoral Politics in Assam 1826-1947. New Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research, 1991.
    Misra, Udayon. The Periphery Strikes Back: Challenges to the Nation-State in Assam and Nagaland. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 2012.
    Sharma, Monirul Hussain. The Assam Movement: Class, Ideology, and Identity. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2004. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kautilya3and @Walsh90210 @EmeraldRange Hey also wanted to point out 3 volumes of books that looked into this topic. Swadhinataar Prostab & Economics of Swadhin Axom. I feel these sources
    You mentioned the following:
    " If this article is supposed to be about a proposed state it needs to show that the proposed state is a proposed state."
    I was only looking at english sources, and there is a lack of literature when it comes to Northeast India.
    There is one article from a newspaper that briefly talks about this idea, but does not elaborate on it: https://www-asomiyapratidin-in.translate.goog/assam/parag-kumar-das-memorial-lecture?_x_tr_sl=bn&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc
    I am offering a brief translation below from assamese :
    However, the proposal or demand for independence is not limited to generations. After the Greco-Roman period, proposals for independence were raised. Buli commented that Tetia's memory is still alive today due to Dr. Mishra's agitation in the Indian freedom struggle. But that freedom was not real freedom, many people raised the issue of muklikoi quora during this period.
    Teon Koy, 1947 The freedom that was gained in Chant country was not real freedom. That freedom was in political freedom. Without social freedom, there will be total freedom. Therefore, many of those freedoms are not complete freedom, many of them were promoting social equality and elimination of discrimination in order to achieve complete freedom.
    The disillusionment was largely disillusioned with the passage of time after independence. All those who hoped for independence were disappointed. During the 60s and 70s, the common people were angry about the socio-economic inequality. About which the movement was started. Protests were held by university and college students. Around that time revolutions were starting in different countries of the world. Apart from political freedom, social freedom, social and economic discrimination, women's freedom was also raised.
    This movement started in Europe and reached America. The Vietnam war was forced to end on the basis of this protest. In the next period, the black people's movement was influenced by this movement, which was the global judge. Kakat also made posters on this topic in Indian schools, and propagated about this movement through discussion.
    Dr. Mishra thought that period of 60-70s was the golden age. Because there was a lot of hope in this demand or movement at that time. The literary majesty of that time was influenced by this movement. A new curriculum was being prepared with the support of intellectuals, college teachers and others who supported the movement to raise the demand for curriculum change. Slogans were being written for the liberation of poor women.
    ofc the two books would be the primary source for this article, and there are several sources - secondary analysis done on these books which can be taken as the secondary supporting sources Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that "Swadhin Asom" (there is a misspelling) literally means Independent Assam, and this should be the article instead, an article that describes the motives for an independent Assam. as there are many different sources that describe this movement as a whole. — Karnataka 09:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete upon review, I don't think the sources in the article necessarily support an article on this specific topic - it does not mean that there should not be coverage of those wanting independence in Assam, but this appears to be possibly about a geographical region and the sources do not support that. WP:NOTESSAY also applies. Drafitfying is fine, but I'm not sure there's a clear topic here after a BEFORE search. SportingFlyer T·C 12:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge to Assam separatist movements or United Liberation Front of Asom. These appear to be the appropriate places for discussion of the causes for an independence movement and related activism, but there doesn't need to be a separate page for the proposed state like this. Flyingphoenixchips's sources and some of this article's content belong in those articles.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A fuller deletion rationale is preferred rather than a brief reference to a general policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 10:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 as there is a consensus that the sources are not sufficient to establish notability under Wikipedia guidelines. I know the DRV suggested salting which I am not doing - it was not part of the consensus here - but do so without prejudice to some other uninvolved administrator protecting the article from recreation. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moruf Oseni

Moruf Oseni (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 nom following the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 June 19 where consensus was that the speedy wasn't the right outcome, but did not necessarily find support for retention and the outcome was for an AfD to establish consensus. Note I have dropped the protection to ECP to allow established editors to improve the article if they feel so inclined as it didn't feel right to have a fully protected article at AfD. However if p-blocks or other solutions are needed, feel free to implement them. I have not protected the AfD out of hope that all editors will work productively. Star Mississippi 13:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the main issue with the page? Are other editors citing any apart from the G11 on the Achievements and Awards section mentioned in the deletion review? @Star Mississippi Michael Ugbodu (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on the merit @Michael Ugbodu, I just nominated it as the outcome of the DRV. Star Mississippi 01:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative cautious keep. It appears this article has a history of ping-ponging between draft space and mainspace, with promotional tone, COI/UPE(?) editing issues, and initially unclear claims of significance/notability. As such it deserves scrutiny. (As an aside, it sounded from DRV there might be information about this on the article's talk page, but this has not been undeleted). That said, earlier this month Michael Ugbodu (who I understand may be an involved editor?) added additional sources which point to achievements and awards that present a credible assertion of significance. In such cases, there are sometimes concerns if the sourcing (and awards) themselves are sufficiently independent, i.e. editorially independent vs regurgitating primary sources only. I'm not familiar with Nigerian sourcing, so don't have a good opinion on this. However, while the process followed with this article has been irregular and far from good practice, absent credible assertions to the contrary, it does seem there is adequate 3rd party coverage, sourcing, and notability to warrant an article. Martinp (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for flagging the lack of talk page @Martinp. Oversight on my part. It's now undeleted Star Mississippi 12:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that I've reviewed the talk page, and read the DRV in more detail, I'm changing to delete, send back to draft and enforce requiring using WP:AFC to recreate by any COI editors. I applaud @Michael Ugbodu for their clear statement of COI on the talk page, and for hunting up promising sources. However, paid editing COI should also be listed on the editor's user talk page, and paid-COI article drafts are indeed supposed to go through WP:AFC, not be promoted into mainspace by a COI editor. This is not just bureaucracy, it is exactly there where independence of sources, article bias, etc can be reviewed best, insulating from the fact that a paid-COI editor has much more energy to argue than uncompensated volunteers if there is any debate. We've now had (at least) multiple days at DRV and now 2.5 days here where no-one independent has truly investigated notability and independence of the secondary sources used. Given the COI, this is a must, and while it may be frustrating to a paid editor and their client to have to wait, it would equally be unfair to keep this article in mainspace absent someone independent, experienced with local (Nigerian) sourcing, to verify, jumping the queue vs other paid articles that are going through the (admittedly clogged) AFC pipeline. I'm happy to change my vote if someone independent does investigate those sources during the rest of this AFD. Martinp (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need to come to a consensus on the main issues with the page. The sources for the awards section are all newspaper sources and not primary sources, so can be considered credible. However, I think the second paragraph on the achievements section can be better written or scrapped as it sounds promotional.
Let's hear what others think as well. Michael Ugbodu (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's trickier, Michael. We have a lot of trouble with CV-like COI articles which do use secondary (newspaper) sources, but they are not sufficiently independent of the article subject. I'm (probably) not notable in wikispeak, but would not become so just because I persuaded a newspaper (or two) to run an article where they just parroted what I told them. That's why we need someone who doesn't have a COI to look into that (I can't, since I know nothing about Nigerian newspaper writing habits!) Martinp (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 10:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List
Here's the address the subject presumably lacking GNG.
The GNG guidelines include:
“Independent Coverage” - "There is significant coverage in reliable sources": The subject has sources from Reliable sources like CNBC Africa, Punch Newspapers, Leadership Newspapers, This Day Live, Business Day, The Guardian Nigeria, and New Telegraph.
"Significant coverage" - “Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material”: The article has a mix of coverage that are focused on the subject and others that support and are not "trivial mentions". All articles referenced have a good amount of coverage of the subject. The section with the least amount of coverage would be the 'Awards section' which goes to show that it wasn't paid for as if it were paid for, more coverage would be seen.
“Sources should be secondary": All sources listed in the article are secondary sources
"Independent of the subject": There is no Advertising, Press Release, Autobiography, or Subject website content on the article. Anybody who feels there is one should please specifically point it out so it can be removed. If the 'Awards' section is deemed too promotional and not having significant coverage, by all means let's take out that section. An entire article doesn't have to be discarded because a particular section has issues. That's why discussions like these were created.
Being a paid editor isn't against Wikipedia rules and shouldn't bring bias to discussions like this. The question is "does the subject pass the GNG? Is the article good enough for mainspace? Is there anything that can be done to improve it for mainspace?" That's what should be the focus, not just going ahead to have it deleted. It is clear that the subject has notability from all the references cited. The Bank of which the subject is CEO of, Wema Bank, is on Wikipedia as well. Michael Ugbodu (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My reasons are stated above Michael Ugbodu (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article needs to be re-written with proper sources. I will recommend the article is adopted by a competent writer, and rewritten because i can posit the individual does not lack GNG. Currently, the article looks promotional. I recommend it is opened for general editing. Pshegs (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Generally lack GNG and the reliable sources has no significant coverage

DXdy FX (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • [This was made in response to a comment, listing a cross-section of references from the article, that's now been changed.] Seriously? 1 [CNBC Africa] has no coverage of the man. 2 [Premium Times] and 4 [Business Day] are copies of the same press release, also appearing e.g. here and here. 3 [Leadership Newspaper] is entirely a quoted press release. 5 [also Leadership Newspaper] is another unmarked press release, as also seen for example here, here, and here. 6 [Guardian Nigeria] also has no biographical coverage, merely a few quotes.
    If you think these constitute GNG-satisfying coverage, I have to ask: are you, like every other editor who has taken an interest in this page, being paid to do so, or are you merely incompetent? —Cryptic 22:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked very they are all press releases. The subject generally has no notability. I think I’ll change my vote to delete right now. DXdy FX (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not ready, lacks notability. --BoraVoro (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The WP:SIGCOV isn't independent and the independent coverage isn't SIGCOV. The only significant coverage of him in media is either direct reprints of WP:PRESSRELEASEs about his appointment(s) at the bank or thinly regurgitated churnalism based on said press releases with no evidence of additional reporting. The other sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS that quote him incidental to his role at the bank but that do not provide significant coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Slovakia at the 2016 Summer Olympics#Athletics. Owen× ☎ 17:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Tišťan

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

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2016 Summer Olympics#Athletics because I could not find enough in-depth coverage of this athlete to meet WP:GNG. The only decent source I found is Netky where he was disqualified, but it looks nowhere near significant. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics#Men. Doesn't meet WP:NATH and WP:SIGCOV. Tau Corvi (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2019 CAFA U-16 Championship

AfDs for this article:
2019 CAFA U-16 Championship (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, no significant coverage Mdann52 (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. the initial delete nomination (lack independent sourcing):
Link 1 by Khovar.tj National Information Agency of Tajikistan/ not related to CAFA
Link 2 Tasnim News Agency an Iranian new agency Independent from CAFA
Link 3 Turkmen news agency which is also Independent from CAFA
Link 4 Sport.kg an Information Agency; Sport.kg is the only specialized portal in Kyrgyzstan
and many more; that i will add to the article to enhance it sourcing
2. The tournament is organized by the Central Asian Football Association (CAFA), which oversees football in Central Asia. CAFA is a member of the AFC and, therefore, FIFA. As an international competition between member nations, the tournament holds significant notability. This is particularly relevant now, as some footballers who participated in the tournament are becoming prominent figures in Central Asian football and across Asia. The tournament shall be cited as the beginning of their international careers, further emphasizing its importance. Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment International level competition and there are sources, however they are very young. So I am not sure at what level wikipedia should be keeping these. Govvy (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep
    let us remember that The Central Asian Football Association (CAFA) was only formed in 2015, and with the tournament being the 8th tournament organised, CAFA has shown significant progress in promoting and developing football in the region. Over the years, CAFA has developed its media coverage and reporting capabilities, making the tournaments more accessible and notable. While the first editions may have had limited coverage due to CAFA's emerging stage and limited experience, the organization's growth and increased attention highlight the importance of these early stages articles being there.
    Furthermore, for Central Asia, where international sports events are relatively scarce, CAFA's tournaments hold notable significance. The early editions of the tournament are crucial for understanding the development of football in the region and providing a better statistical context. As CAFA continues to grow and attract more attention, the historical records of all editions, including the first ones, will be valuable for researchers, fans, and anyone interested in the football in Central Asia.
    Therefore, despite its relatively young age, CAFA's tournaments are notable and deserving of coverage on Wikipedia, as they contribute to the broader narrative of international sports in Central Asia. Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have arguments to Keep, Delete and Redirect right now. Let's get a few more sports fans in here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Redirecting it would diminish the significance of the tournament compared to other international competitions. This is an Under-16 level event organized by all confederations; the article should remain. Similar to UEFA and AFC tournament editions before the 2000s, the early editions of the CAFA tournament need to be preserved.
Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lunar Spectrum96: you can only !vote once, I've removed the duplicate above. Mdann52 (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎ to Draft:Mehran Tebyani. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehran Tebyani

Mehran Tebyani (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)

Moved from draft by conflicted editor, no evidence of passing WP:GNG primary sources and interviews don't help with notability. Theroadislong (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redraftify until notability issues fixed. Procyon117 (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mehran Tebyani
is a notable figure in the field of music, particularly recognized for being the first Iranian conductor to hold a doctoral degree. His contributions to the music industry are significant and well-documented. Here are key points highlighting his notability and accomplishments:
  • Academic Achievements: Mehran Tebyani holds a doctoral degree, making him the first Iranian conductor to achieve this level of academic success in the field.
  • Publications: He has published a book in Iran, which contributes to his recognition as a scholar and expert in music.
  • Media Coverage: Tebyani has been interviewed by numerous newspapers in Iran, demonstrating his influence and prominence in the Iranian music scene.
  • Radio Sessions: During his time in Los Angeles, he hosted a radio session dedicated to the history of music for one year, further showcasing his expertise and commitment to educating the public about music.
  • Concerts and Performances: He has conducted several concerts at UCLA in Los Angeles, adding to his international recognition and illustrating his active involvement in the music community.
Dr.Hana jalili (talk) 06:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move back to Draft -- as it is written, there aren't enough sources that establish notability beyond a doubt (the Lede has an interesting fact and cool accomplishment but probably is not enough on its own to get past GNG or a Music notability guideline). The author should continue to work on getting sources that point directly to notability (translated quotations from Iranian publications would help). On the WP:PROF side, it's a case of TOOSOON (often composers and conductors who are also academics pass the GNG or NMUSIC bar before they pass the WP:PROF criteria. -- any one of them is, however, enough to be a keep vote). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mscuthbert (talk • contribs) 06:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify based on the discussion and argument, I see draftifying as the best option. LusikSnusik (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Muzzammil Aslam

Muzzammil Aslam (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 creator of this BLP SheriffIsInTown claims that this BLP falls under NPOL, but NPOL is not applicable here. Any advisor to Chief Minister of a province, must meet the GNG, which they do not. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NPOL. Youknow? (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Youknowwhoistheman There is extensive coverage in the Urdu language media and press about this individual and his work, as seen in the search results on Google here. Given this, would you reconsider changing your vote? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect your argument. But I don't think that being an advisor to any Chief Minister, he is passing WP:NPOL. And if we talk about WP:GNG, then he is not able to pass even that subject. First, neither WP:SIGCOV is there, from WP:RS is available. Hope you have understood. Best of luck for the future! Youknow? (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SheriffIsInTown, If you believe the subject has extensive coverage, could you provide the WP:THREE best sources that meet WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV. Simply saying WP:GOOGLEHITS won't suffice — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Saqib @Youknowwhoistheman With hundreds of sources available, selecting just three is challenging. Most reliable sources cover his statements or financial initiatives, now they wouldn’t report on a non-notable nobody. His notability is evident from the coverage his statements receive. His position contributes to his notability, and this isn’t his first role; he was previously an advisor to Prime Minister Imran Khan. Despite the difficulty in choosing from many sources, a We News piece in Urdu language focuses exclusively on him, and numerous reliable sources with alternative spellings of his name report on his statements and work. This Express Tribune is all about him as well. Then, there are many which cover his appointment to the cabinet, one of them being this Dawn piece. There are plenty more under alternative spelling of his name here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SheriffIsInTown, You mentioned there are hundreds of sources available, but since you've provided 03 coverages, I would like to assess them individually. Firstly, I don't even consider We News a RS. I'm unsure if it has been discussed at WP:RSN, but given its scarce use on WP, I'm not inclined to spend time debating its reliability there. WP:COMMONSENSE suggests it isn't a RS, especially for BLPs. The coverage in the Express Tribune doesn't directly and thoroughly discuss the subject, though this coverage can be used for WP:V, not to establish GNG. The same can be said for the Dawn coverage; it's WP:TRIVIALMENTION and lacks sig./in-depth coverage of the subject. While I don't dispute that there may be some press coverage, but we need solid coverage that delves into detail as required by the GNG for it to contribute to meeting WP:N. We do not establish the WP:N of BLPs based on WP:TRIVIALMENTION or WP:ROTM coverage. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 05:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Saqib Why wouldn't you consider We News reliable? Limited usage doesn't necessarily indicate that the source is unreliable. What do you think about this and this? These three combined should be enough to meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SheriffIsInTown, I'm not saying We News isn't a RS because it's seldom used here. Please re-read my comment. We News isn't reliable for many reasons, one of which is that the author who wrote about Muzzammil Aslam tends to produce sensational/tabloid-style stories. Additionally, all the sources you've provided (incl. this and this) are just announcements about his appointment as an Advisor in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government, making this a clear case of WP:BLP1E. Please allow me to ping @S0091: to get their take on the provided coverage/sources. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that pinging specific editors to get their views in a deletion discussion may be construed as canvassing. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1) this specific editor does not always share the same views as mine. 2) I'm not seeking their vote; I just want their feedback on the provided coverage. 3) WP:CANVASS doesn't explicitly prohibit pinging others. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Saqib is correct that I do not always agree with him. However, I will not offer an opinion by being pinged to an AfD in which I have not already participated because even the appearance of canvassing is enough to sew distrust which is the last thing AfD needs, especially a contentious one which appears to be the case here. S0091 (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, no problem. However, @OwenX mentioned here that it’s safe to occasionally ping others for their input. But anyway I understand your position. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Advisor's portfolio is considered equal to a minister making them functional part of the cabinet. In this case, they are a member of the provincial cabinet. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • SheriffIsInTown, Firstly, this notification does not state they have the same status or powers as a minister. Notifications typically mention such if an advisor is getting the same power/status as a minister. And even if they did, I don't think it falls under NPOL. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Given that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province does not have a finance minister, Aslam's role becomes particularly significant. He is currently the sole individual in the cabinet overseeing financial matters, which underscores his importance and justifies the need for an article about him. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that NPOL does not cover advisors to ministers. There is no consensus that it does and no good reason has been provided to extend NPOL's reach that far. I won't !vote because I can't effectively search for coverage in Urdu. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voorts Please take any references I've given in Urdu, copy the text, and use Google Translator to translate it from Urdu to English. Even if NPOL doesn't apply to him, I believe he still has enough coverage to meet GNG. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We News appears to be reliable and is SIGCOV. Tribune and Dawn are trivial mentions. Not enough to meet GNG. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voorts How about this one and this one? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Voorts I've briefly explained above why I don't think We News is a RS. SheriffIsInTown Just getting some press coverage doesn't make someone notable or meet the GNG. Fwiw, Waqar Zaka has considerably more press coverage, yet his BLP was deleted because it failed to meet the rigorous GNG requirement. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not being used often on Wikipedia does not make a source unreliable. We News appears to have an editorial board and some reporting standards. I'm not seeing any huge red flags on their website. Also, the fact that another article was deleted is neither here nor there because we evaluate each article on its own merits. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voorts I hope you didn't overlook my previous comment where I shared two additional English language sources (TNN and Mettis Global) that provide detailed coverage of Aslam. These might help you reconsider and change your comment to a keep vote. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mettis is a trivial mention announcing his being hired. TNN is also routine coverage about him being hired. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voorts I never claimed that the infrequent use of a source makes it unreliable. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I misread your point above. Apologies. But the fact that it isn't used much doesn't mean we can just hand-wave away its reliability in this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Voorts, Noted. And that's precisely why I pinged @S0091, for a third opinion on this source. Also I mentioned Waqar Zaka because he also served as an expert in the same government, albeit in a different role. And he has received significantly more press coverage than Muzzammil Aslam. This was merely an example and not meant to establish a precedent. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Saqib @Voorts The TNN story covers him as a person, stating he is a renowned economist, mentions his date of birth, two decades of experience, and leadership positions in several private institutions. It also covers his joining PTI, his previous role, and his educational qualifications in detail. Mettis Global discusses his appointment and mentions others who have been appointed as advisors, but the rest of the piece is about him, indicating his greater notability. The rest of the piece, like the We News and TNN stories, talks about his role as a spokesperson, his 15 years of business experience, and detailed coverage of his educational qualifications. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SheriffIsInTown, I understand your point but I’m still not convinced. As I mentioned earlier, both stories discuss his appointment as an advisor. Thus, I concur with @Voorts that both are just routine coverage about him being hired. A clear case of WP:BLP1E. While I’m fine with citing them for WP:V, but imv they don’t meet the criteria for establishing GNG. In case it’s useful, the Mettis Global coverage doesn’t even have a byline. And does Tribal News Network even have an editorial team? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think there is a consensus that WP:NPOL is not the standard to meet here but instead it's GNG and there are different opinions on whether coverage mention is SIGCOV or passing mentions or routine. The burden falls on those arguing to Keep to supply RS. Don't just mention publications, please provide links to articles that can establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz The links were provided. In my opinion, the following three meet the SIGCOV and GNG. They are not merely passing mentions, but there is disagreement:
  1. We News
  2. TNN
  3. Mettis Global
Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not passing mentions, true, but all of these only cover him in the context of his nomination, so that's a clear case of WP:BLP1E (Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.), which makes this non-notable even without discussing the (discutable) reliability of these three sources. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1— Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alien333 You are overlooking the points under BLP1E. BLP1E applies only if all three conditions are met, but that is not the case here. He continues to receive significant coverage due to his role as a finance advisor in a provincial government, which exceeds the criteria of BLP1E. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SheriffIsInTown And can you please give the mentioned coverage after his nominations? With links, please? So far all you've given was only in the context of his nominations. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 15:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alien333 Here are just a few sources covering his role as the sole person managing the provincial government's finances. There are hundreds more if we include alternative spellings like Muzamil Aslam and sources in Urdu. These sources have emerged after his appointment, and such coverage will continue as long as he holds this position and the current government remains in power, typically for a five-year term. This consistent coverage exceeds the scope of BLP1E:
The following coverage is all from 2021/2022, when he was part of the federal government, making it two separate events:
Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With these sources, you've got me convinced. Will change my vote accordingly. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm still not convinced he meets the GNG. The coverage provided lacks by-line and seems to be based on press releases — "he said this," "he said that." which is typical for a spokesperson activities. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb @Youknowwhoistheman Considering the above comment and the sources mentioned, would you be willing to reconsider your vote? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did a lot of research, but I don't see this person meet Wikipedia's general notability criteria (WP:GNG). Youknow? (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify with protection‎. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of country subdivision flags in Africa

AfDs for this article:
List of country subdivision flags in Africa (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 closed to draftify and immediately recreated by the same editor. Thanks to the merged content it is no longer a G4, but none of the material added addresses the issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of country subdivision flags in Africa. If this closes as draftify or delete, suggest protection to avoid this situation again. Star Mississippi 23:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title is "flags of country subdivisions of Africa", and what is shown are the flags of country subdivisions of Africa. By draftifying it, you are removing a whole list of flags that some people may find useful. Eehuiio (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not a gallery anymore, I converted into informative tables. I hope this will help 2A02:A453:D05E:0:7859:2E95:3DE6:2A4A (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It remains un sourced, which is the chief issue. Please log in when you edit. Star Mississippi 13:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
many sources have been added now. This should not be deleted. Eehuiio (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please review sourcing guidelines. fotw.info is not an acceptable source, nor are many of the others. This is why it remains functionally unsourced. Star Mississippi 13:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is unsourced, it still has information that fits the title. Deleting it would be useless and unnecessary. Eehuiio (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify over current draft with historymerge (the current list article at least looks better). Eehuiio, as Star Mississippi notes, neither fotw.info nor crwflags.com nor others are reliable sources. For the purpose of this list's entries, I believe official government sources would be reasonable to use despite not necessarily being independent. The alternative is that every entry that is not reliably sourced is removed/commented out per WP:V/WP:BURDEN, which would remove most content from this article; historymerge would be needed in this case anyway. If this is moved to draft, then please put it through the Articles for Creation process per the AFC template once you believe that the flags are properly sourced; please don't move this back to mainspace in a deficient state where it is likely to be speedily deleted, etc. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 01:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This page also has other sources, so it isnt completely unsourced. Also, it still fulfills the title and is useful. Eehuiio (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • post-relisting, confirm my draftification !vote, ref per comments of BD2412, etc. If it's fixed in draft and sent through AFC, then good. If it's left unfixed then so be it. If it's moved back to somewhere in mainspace in a deficient form (yes, protect away), then consider that a WP:G4 with broad latitude ref this AFD. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 14:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator commentyes, the reopening was Involved, but I do not believe that is an issue as it's clearly not a discussion for a NAC. Cleaning up redirects now Star Mississippi 14:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're all tired of whack a sock. @Eehuiio if you run into issues editing here, just remember to log in first. This has nothing to do with your edits. I've protected against logged out edits. If any admin thinks this is Involved, feel free to revert me. Star Mississippi 18:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: and salt. Draftification makes sense when an editor editors familiar with our notability guidelines offers are available to work on the article. Draftification makes no sense when a single-purpose account cares more about having their pet page on WP than they do about any P&G. If we draftify this again, it'll bounce right back to mainspace as soon as we turn our head away, and we'll be back here in a couple of weeks for the 3rd nomination. Salting in this case is only meant to force the author to go throuigh AfC. Owen× ☎ 21:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The rationale by Own makes sense to me and as a NP patroller I am frustrated when an editor ignores process. Lightburst (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Move-lock the draft and create-lock the page. The draft will either be worked on in draftspace or die on the vine. Deletion should be reserved for cases where we should never have such an article. BD2412 T 21:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: I agree with BD2412 that the page should be SALTed until the draft is accepted at AfC. I also believe that a comment to that effect, with a link to this discussion, should be added to the draft for the benefit of AfC reviewers. I disagree with OwenX that Draftification makes sense when an editor familiar with our notability guidelines offers to work on the article. Anyone can edit a draft in the draftspace. As a result of this AfD, there will also now be likelly be a set of eyes on the draft. Someone could also agree to work with the author. Edited 23:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC). I also disagree with the contention that Draftification makes no sense when a single-purpose account cares more about having their pet page on WP than they do about any P&G. Draftification is actually the best way to force that editor to try to learn those P&Gs so that they can get the article through AfC. I share Lightburst's frustrat[ion] when an editor ignores process, but I do not believe that it is a valid reason to delete an article. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You make some good points, voorts, and I partially amended my !vote above accordingly. Yes, drafts are available for everyone to work on, and this AfD may very well bring more attention to the page. But while the AfC process was indeed intended to teach editors our P&G, the ability to move drafts into mainspace without going through AfC effectively negates that objective, allowing a SPA to circumvent the process. I'd gladly undelete the page to draft if a non-SPA requests it, or even history-merge with a new draft. But realistically, I doubt anyone but the original author has any interest in this page. I agree with BD2412's statement that Deletion should be reserved for cases where we should never have such an article, but contend that this is exactly the case here, where sources do not establish notability, and the only one requesting a draft is an editor who doesn't seem concerned with our notability guidelines, and is simply waiting for an opportune moment to sneak the page back to mainspace. Owen× ☎ 12:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a quick side note. Flags of regions of Egypt is completely unsourced. The absence of sourcing in the nominated article revealed that, and if the latter article were fixed, it could transclude into this one as is. BD2412 T 21:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Neither of the two Keep views successfully countered the deficiency in sourcing. Owen× ☎ 17:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) -- Update: The article creator now added many references, but none of them speaks about family, only about individual members. - Altenmann >talk 17:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

References

  1. ^ https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/ssne/item.php?id=3876

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)[reply]

Update the noble Russian family Count Fermor is displayed in beautiful portraits in the State Russian museum: daughter and son of General Wiliam Fermor (see gallery of the entry). The daughter Sarah Eleanore Fermor of General Wiliam Fermor is considered to be Ivan Vishnyakov most beautiful portraits. The display of this family portraits already underlines the notability of the russian Fermor family.
Members of the noble family have several historic reference: An aide du camp of the Polish Governor got shot by revolutionists in 1906 during the Revolution in the Kingdom of Poland (1905–1907), a count donated a Mammoth to the National Museum of Natural History, France[1] and held important Russian military and civil position. The count title gives enough notability to deserve the article. Moreover the family is referenced in several Russian genealogy books.
Furthermore US press considers Count Fermor to be "a member of one of the most aristocratic Russian families"[2] and a a "descendant of the first Russian dynasty".
sidenote: In contrast to false User:Altenmann claims the history of the article in question shows well that I am not the creator of it, just merely improving it now and pointing out the importance of the Fermor (Russian nobility). Axisstroke (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"descendant of the first Russian dynasty" and "one of the most aristocratic Russian families" are nonsense newspaper hype that cannot be taken seriously as proof of notability. - Altenmann >talk 18:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hype is usual in US newspaper. Nevertheless good hype based on that family members gave their life for the Russia Empire. Axisstroke (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep stands. (And no this is not a second vote just a reiteration based on the updated article on the noble Counts Fermor).
Axisstroke (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. More sources would still be needed for a more definite statement. Updated 10:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC) Delete unless references about the family, not individual members, are found. Are there no family entries in any Russian-language encyclopedias, or is it just that this family is not covered? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The counts of Fermor are covered in the first three references. Why do you claim they are not covered?
    Moreover in the update above is indicated that the family is covered by special portraits in the Russian State museum: Daughter and Son of the General Count Fermor. How can the son and daughter not count as family members?
    How does the grand daughter who was one of the richest female entrepreneurs not count as family member? The claims by the initiator of the delete request that the Counts are not covered is not true.
    Moreover you seem to ignore the visit of the ambassador of Bismarck, which stayed at the family home in St Petersburg, when he was German Ambassador in Russia and got Russian lessons by the family of the counts of Fermor. Axisstroke (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe the confusion stems that the German nobility title given to General Wiliam Fermor got recognized by the Russian emperor directly afterwards. So it is a German title for a Russian family in the Russian Empire (including baltic states). Axisstroke (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What are the exact pages in e.g. Baltisches Wappenbuch? I also don't see an entry for Fermor family in Titled nobility of Europe. Please provide quotes if the Google Books snippet search is not accurate. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added google books links for the first references to help to clarify. The pages to the Reichsgraf title are on page 32[3] "Reichs Graf 12. 6.1758" and on page 37 of the additional text to the book[4] "1759 Graf Fermor, Wilhelm Senateur zu Nitau, Mahrzen, Muehlgraben" (Baltic property of the family).
    First of all the title of the page is "Fermor (Russian nobility)". The title given by Maria Theresia to General Wiliam Fermor is Reichsgraf as referenced. Reichsgraf is a high noble title so notability of the nobility is given. The title is hereditary hence any descendant got it.
    Second of all the portraits of his son and daughter are high class portraits by one of the best painter. At the time this was not done for peasants and the Russian state museum portraits underline the notability of the family. I am quite puzzled why this portraits would not count in the referenced notability of the Count Fermor's.
    Third of all the family is referenced in the two other secondary books. Axisstroke (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The titled nobility book picks up the female Fermor descendant line, see page 1396 where Count Fermor becomes hereditary Count Stenbock Fermor. Axisstroke (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify what kind of entries are sought, here's an example from Swedish biographical dictionary for House of Bjälbo: https://sok.riksarkivet.se/sbl/mobil/Artikel/14301 That entry discusses the family itself, not only the individuals. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "General Fermor, whose origin is unknown to me, signalized himself in the Seven Years' war, and was created Count in the year 1788, June 12th. His name passed to a branch of the Counts of Stenbock, an illoustrous family in the records of Sweden"[5]
    Summarizing the son (portrait 2) of the General has no known descendants, his daughter Sarah (portrait 3) marries a count Stenbock and their son (grand-son of the General) becomes count Stenbock Fermor. Axisstroke (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The above, and this reference gives information about the Stenbock-Fermor line at least. Here's a somewhat more substantial reference contributing to notability of the Fermor name: Российская родословная книга, Том 2 (p. 259, or search for Fermor) The translated and annotated version currently present in the article does not contain as much information. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed this is a great reference and information which is not present in any either language [ru, uk] Fermor entry. I will add shortly. Thank you. Axisstroke (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Morfill 1902: A history of Russia, from the birth of Peter the Great to Nicholas II mentions that William Fermor was of English extraction, and connected with the same family which claimed the famous Arabella, the heroine of the "Rape of the Lock. This is such a brief mention that I don't consider it contributing to notability (which I still find borderline) but may nevertheless be useful. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right there is also a funny conspiracy theory involving a count Steinbock Fermor plotting the Death of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, see section "Suicide ordered by "court of honor". I won't include these speculations. Axisstroke (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Haven't yet included the full info from the russian book, will do over next days. Axisstroke (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.mnhn.fr/fr/mammouth-laineux
  2. ^ https://books.google.nl/books?id=cXY-AAAAIBAJ&lpg=PA2&dq=%22Fermor%22%20Russian%20count&hl=nl&pg=PA2#v=onepage&q=fermor&f=false
  3. ^ https://www.digar.ee/viewer/et/nlib-digar:46148/18062/page/35
  4. ^ https://www.digar.ee/viewer/et/nlib-digar:46148/18062/page/176
  5. ^ https://books.google.nl/books?id=MJsBAAAAQAAJ&vq=fermor&hl=nl&pg=PA105#v=onepage&q&f=false
  • Delete per WP:TNT. I don’t see how any other editor can’t see the numerous issues with this page and think that it’s anything more than a very poorly translated and formatted article. If this family were really famous, they would have many more sources, and at least some editors would fix it. Right now, this is looking like many hours of editing. Even assuming, arguendo, that this passes barely, it’s a hot mess, as the kids say. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first four and the sixth references in the intro show the relevance of the family. There were none when this procedure started. The references on the Fermor nobility are in German, Russian and English, so if there is any doubt on them that be good to hear. At this point as referenced article it is on the initiator or endorser to show that the references would not bear notability.
    Besides the nuclear option, any constructive advice. Axisstroke (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded intro and fixed to have the first five important references as the relevant ones. Axisstroke (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no references that discuss the family in reasonable depth, only mention it or describe its members. - Altenmann >talk 01:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true: The coat of arms is for the family as it's hereditary title. The book references speak about both the family and it's individuals, as a family is the sum of it's members. The Ivan Vishnyakov portraits are quite notable, plus there are both Russian and Ukraine entries of the Fermor nobility. Axisstroke (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The portraits contribute nothing towards notability. They do not illustrate many generations of family, it's just William Fermor's children. Wikipedia entries also do not count since they are not considered reliable. Coat of arms is something to be discussed in the article, but notability is determined from textual material. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that each Wikipedia has it's own rules. Nevertheless if the family would not have Russian and Ukranian entries that would point to a lack of notability. Axisstroke (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Argument as a placeholder. There is unanimous agreement not to keep this article, but no consensus as to the best redirect target. Any editor is welcome to replace with a better target, or carry out a page-swap. Owen× ☎ 13:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Redirect to any of the above choices. This article exists because nobody could what???????? 🤔
jp×g🗯️ 11:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Leap Motion. Debate about switching the redirect target to Torch (company) can continue on the target's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Buckwald

AfDs for this article:
Michael Buckwald (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)

Eight months since the last AFD, and he's still a non-notable CEO of a notable company. Article is nearly identical to the previous version, apart from the 2013 Time magazine interview. The rest is still just coverage of him in the context of his company, passing mentions, and interviews. G4 contested by SPA anon editor, likely the logged-out article creator. Strong aroma of UPE. Wikishovel (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should add that I did the usual G-search and found no significant independent sources. Lamona (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I lean towards trimming the page and leaving the basic information. Redirecting to another page is not optimal either. The person has a basic level of notable media coverage and is generally notable. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Cinéfondation#Prize winners. Consensus is against retention. As the film's article does not exist, a redirect thereto is not possible. Should that article come about, this can be retargeted as needed. Star Mississippi 16:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chidananda S Naik

Chidananda S Naik (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)

Some information on this guy: Chidananda made the sixteen minute short film Sunflowers Were the First Ones to Know... in four days at the end of his one-year television course in the Film and Television Institute of India. The 16-minute film is based on a Kannada folk tale about a rooster not coming causing the sun not to rise in a village. It won the La Cinéf award at the Cannes Film Festival. This is the main content on doesn't warrant an article here. Anything (Essentially, just the award) you need about him is already online.

Almost every single source on the internet about Sunflowers Were the First Ones to Know says short film wins Cannes award and nothing else. This is a case of WP:TOO EARLY. Why not wait till he directs feature films?

I am acting in good faith because two users see User_talk:Mushy_Yank#Notability_2 and second opinion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Does one film guarantee notability? claims that this person does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (people).

The critical reception section is a stretch, no matter which Indian film won in Cannes, the comment would be the same. Another source about this guy's short film from Variety: [14] (again, only about the award). This AfD is a complete waste of time (caused by undo of redirect to Cinéfondation saying take it to AfD [15]) DareshMohan (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Karnataka. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cinéfondation#Prize winners: A redirect seems like a good ATD so far. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Subject passes WP:ANYBIO#1. The significant award/honor here is 1st Prize - Premier Prix award from Cinéfondation, 2024 Cannes Film Festival, where the film was judged among 18 films globally. The award is well know and has it's own article on Wikipedia, Cinéfondation. There is coverage from multiple published sources that are also reliable. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not fiercely opposed to keep if everyone agrees he is notable but I think it should be made clear that 1) the award itself has no page, it's the foundation that promotes it which has 2) it is technically the film (a student film) that receives the award, not its director. You don't think that if we decide ANYBIO applies in this case, we would establish a precedent setting the bar extremely low? I do. I don't think that WP:DIRECTOR appplies anyway, coverage on the film being insufficiently significant imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC) On second thoughts "unstriking" (virtually) my comment: I do consider that "coverage on the film (is) insufficiently significant imv." for the director to meet WP:DIRECTOR requirements. Not unsignificant nor trivial and mentioning a significant award, yes but not enough at least for WP:DIRECTOR, I should think.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The foundation is notable for the award it gives out. It was started in 1998 and the award has been given annually since then. The award, technically, belongs to the director for being the brains behind it, which is why the director's name is mentioned in the 2024 Cannes Film Festival and Cinéfondation article instead of the producer's name. Nandi Awards is only significant in Andhra Pradesh, whereas Cinéfondation brings coverage from Variety (magazine) as well as Hindustan Times, which would you consider a more popular award now?
    Coverage on the film being insufficiently significant? Here are some reliable sources that explicitly mention the film's name in the title: [16][17][18][19][20][21]. Expecting a breakdown, analysis or a review for a film that has only been screened once(AFAIK) is absurd. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are some articles that are indeed significant in the links you provided here. Not commenting on the rest, if I may. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But since you kindly asked me (not sure the question was meaningful or not ironic): yes, obviously I find the Nandi way more "popular" than the Cinéfondation premier prix, yes. That's not exactly the point, I'm afraid. Here, the fact that this is a student short film is for me, so far, an issue, and I still favour a redirect, but as I said, not fiercely opposed to keep, especially in light of the sources you added presented here (most of them also being on the page, except if I am not mistaken, the article in the New India Express and DDNews). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC) (edited my comment for clarification as my comment may have been misleading . Also adding that it's very likely that among the journalists or papers who mentioned the award and interviewed the director, not many if any at all have seen the film; and for me, this too is a problem; basically the question remains: can ANYBIO apply if the award, significant or not, is attributed to the work? Can WP:DIRECTOR apply in a case where coverage, although somehow significant as it addresses the film, is only mentions of the plot, the award, and in some sources of a few facts about production? Most sources are indeed generally reliable, although various articles are not being bylined, which I personally don't mind but is regularly pointed out negatively when it comes to Indian film, some users considering such coverage unreliable as a rule (I don't :D). I am still not sure, and still consider a redirect to be the best outcome. Maybe it's absurd to require further analysis of the work but can we really bypass that requirement just because the film has only been screened in Cannes, and not by the journalists who wrote the article, and is short? Not sure. Sorry for the cascading clarifications. I don't think I will change my mind from now, nor positively nor negatively. Even if one considers that it's the film after all that's notable and the article about the director is only here as a form of substitute for the article about the short, I am not certain that the premier prix at Cinéfondation, although significant, can be considered a major award nor that the coverage is substantial enough. Maybe the said coverage cannot be more than what it is now for obvious reasons, maybe, but still. I've done, again, some further searching and there's also coverage in French: https://lepetitjournal.com/inde/actualites/triomphe-indien-au-festival-de-cannes-2024-386190 or this blog; https://www.inde-cineskope.com/2024/05/cannes-2024-payal-kapadia-et-linde.html Good luck.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What's stopping you from doing a WP:BEFORE? There are many reliable sources for the subject and the film apart from the the six I have cited.
    The coverage that follows from someone meeting an additional criteria is just a bonus. Most Olympic athletes, older MLAs, sports personalities, politicians and judges do not have significant coverage. There are many articles with only database entries and primary sources as references simply because they meet an additional criteria and are presumed to be notable. The basic criterion that has been followed until now is that if an award has a standalone article and someone has received that award, they are presumed to be notable. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What's stopping you from doing a WP:BEFORE? is a very undue, rude and aggressive comment. I've searched for sources extensively THREE OR FOUR TIMES. Just look at my comments (and at 2 other venues) and presented sources myself (you're welcome). Again, the award has no page, and the film received the award, not him. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think that a regional award is more popular than Cinéfondation and that there is no substantial coverage when the coverage is not even required, then I cant help you. Ciao Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been posted on Talk:Cannes Film Festival, Talk:2024 Cannes Film Festival, Talk:Cinéfondation, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Film festivals task force and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards to draw a wider range of editors for discussion. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: So he won a sidebar competition at Cannes. The film might be notable, this individual isn't. Redirect to the film's article, if it's deemed notable. This is too early to have a wikipedia article for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clear pass of ANYBIO #1. If I were able to assess and read the non-English language sources, I'm confident there would be a clear NBASIC pass as well. ANYBIO doesn't require significant coverage of the person outside of the work, by the way - that is pretty much the whole point of that criterion. Newimpartial (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Newimpartial: Here is the sources in Indian language [22] which also just say that the film won the award. So is the short film notable or him notable -- I would say the short film maybe. DareshMohan (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I would agree with you, DareshMohan. ANYBIO clearly states, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" (emphasis mine), while all sources mention that the film received the award. And while I would certainly admit that for a student short film the award is significant, I wouldn't transfer that significance to the person directly. Even regarding the film, it is judged as a student film and I personally am reluctant to consider that in itself the award (although clearly an achievement) is enough to make the short notable (the notability for films is more strict and the award needs to be considered a major award, which this one is not imv). As for the director, even less so, then. Of course, he directed it, but then WP:DIRECTOR would be the relevant guideline. And see my view about that guideline applying or not, above. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you both (Mushy Yank and DareshMohan) are misreading WP:DIRECTOR, the point of which is that when the works attributable to a particular creator are notable, that makes their creator notable. This is a major, and well-documented, limitation to the WP:NOTINHERITED principle, which continues to apply in the other direction - the non-notable films of a notable director are not necessarily notable.
    What is more, your interptetation of ANYBIO #1 does not, I think, reflect the general understanding. While for collective works, the distinction betweent the work and its creators may be significant for notability. However, the idea that the sole author of a book that wins a major award could somehow not therefore be notable does not reflect a coherent reading of NCREATIVE, in my view (which I believe is the general one). A film of this kind, where the director is universally regarded as its creator, follows the same logic as a book IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to insist, but I think we've read WP:DIRECTOR quite correctly: our point is precisely that we don't think (at leat in my case) the evidence proving that that short student film is notable (work, singular, not plural in the present case) is compelling either, given the type of coverage or and the nature of the award it received. I've already repeated that various times. As for ANYBIO, feel free to change the wording or phrasing of the guideline if you think it's too limitative, but I've quoted the current one and it's pretty clear. The person has to receive the award and the said award (concerning persons, obviously) needs to be both well-known and significant. If you think that evidence shows that the work is clearly notable according to the guideline, let's agree to disagree. If you think that the award received by a film can be automatically transferred to its director and that this is the general and correct view, sure, I understand but that's not what the guideline says. If you think that that award is well-known and significant, sure, maybe, regarding student short/medium length films but certainly not for the notability of a "director" (who was still a student when he received it). That is for me setting the interpretative bar slightly too low but as I said above, not fiercely opposed to keep this if everyone agrees this inclusive interpretation is acceptable and the coverage about the film show it's a notable work. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any reasonable doubt that Sunflowers... is a notable film. It clearly meets WP:NFILM #3, and I have seen for myself the multiple reliable sources documenting this claim to notability.
    And I will say again: the point of WP:CREATIVE, whether for authors or filmmakers, is to offer guidance for the atypical case documented at WP:INHERITED - people who are specifically responsible for a notable creative work, whether as authors or as film directors, are therefore notable. That's what a significant or well-known work is - a notable one - and there is no consensus to change this well-established standard to require more than one work for this principle to apply. Newimpartial (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify: I never said that more than one work is needed to meet WP:DIRECTOR nor did I mention WP:INHERITED myself (I never do). That's not my point. One notable work is enough imv. But, allow me to repeat myself one last time, WP:NFILM#3, that you mention, requires a MAJOR award, that's the word in the guideline. Major. Again, the Cinéfondation Premier prix is certainly an achievement for a student film but I wouldn't call it a major award. (See this, for example). And I find it therefore quite reasonable, even considering the existing coverage, to doubt whether that student short film is notable enough according to the requirements of Wikipedia. If it is not, a redirect for its student-director seems to be, so far, the kindest outcome imv. If everyone thinks it is, feel free to create the page about that short student film. I for one, would wait for its director to become a professional one and/or for the short film to attract in-depth attention from reviewers who might have watched it. But that's just me. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus and discussion is continuing up to the time of relisting. We have basically two very different interpretations of policies and that is not easy to reconcile.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I have invited Martineden83, Οἶδα, Bearcat, Extended Cut, The One I Left, ZoolverLaurenschneider210, Jenny8lee, Sj and Fuzheado to draw a wider range of informed but uninvolved editors to this discussion as it has been relisted without any further comments. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The discussion above seems rather like hair-splitting to me. The question of whether the award is given "to the film" or "to the filmmaker" is a moot point that has nothing to do with notability vis-à-vis film awards, for starters — regardless of whether the award is technically "for the film" or "for the filmmaker", the filmmaker is still the one who has to walk up on stage to accept it and give a thank-you speech either way, because the film is not itself a sentient entity, so that argument is introducing a meaningless distinction. For another thing, the question of whether our article about Cinéfondation is "about the award" or "about the organization that presents the award" is also a meaningless and irrelevant distinction, because you could make that same "how much is or isn't this article about the event vs. about the organization that presents the event" argument about every single article we have about any event at all, so that's just not a meaningful point of debate when it comes to questions of whether an award makes its winners notable or not. And finally, the award was presented at Cannes, which is one of the most famous and notable film festivals in the world.
    To be fair, not all of the films or directors listed in the Cinéfondation article have articles yet, but that's also not a notability issue — any of them can, and will, have articles if and when somebody gets around to writing articles about them. And there is additionally no rule that filmmakers always have to have made feature films before they become eligible for Wikipedia articles — short films do tend to be harder to write good, GNG-compliant articles about, since they tend to get less coverage than feature films do, but films are not automatically non-notable just because they're short, and can absolutely still pass notability criteria (such as winning notability-making awards) just the same, so "short vs. feature" doesn't impact notability criteria for films or their makers either: that's a question of whether you can support the article with decent sources or not, and not a question of the film's length itself.
    So, really, what it comes down to is whether the article features enough WP:GNG-worthy sourcing to properly establish that notability criteria have been met — and while I'd suggest replacing footnote #7 with a secondary source instead of a primary one, all of the other six footnotes are just fine and absolutely add up to enough. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect – First place short at a sidebar is not significant coverage of the director. The award guarantees a future slot higher up in the Cannes program for a first feature, but until then the existing coverage pertains to the film. If we were discussing a winner of the Caméra d'or, Prix Un Certain Regard or Palme d'Or du Court Métrage this would be different. But it feels like we've gone several notches down and called it a major award because it's Cannes adjacent. An article for the film would however pass WP:GNG. Οἶδα (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Director's Fortnight, the Semaine de la critique and the Queer Palm, all of which are clearly notability-making awards presented at Cannes, are also sidebars rather than "the main competition" — so if the word "sidebar" were any kind of notability extinguisher on its own, at least half of all the film articles we have whose notability is Cannes-derived would have to be deleted. The distinction that matters when it comes to Cannes is festival vs. market, not festival main program vs festival sidebar program. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My contention was that the Cinéfondation sidebar is particularly eclipsed by the official selection and other sections. I do not believe first place at Cinéfondation is a major award conferring significant coverage to the director themself. Unfortunately I do not believe this matter will be resolved any deeper than the 'hair-splitting' discussion that already played out above. So I will resign the issue to my vote. Οἶδα (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, the notability guideline page for BLPs does not mention anywhere that significant coverage is a requirement for someone to pass WP:DIRECTOR or WP:ANYBIO. I believe we have more content about Chidananda S Naik than about the short film that won the award, so redirecting would only result in the loss of content, leaving us with a very short stub article. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are merely repeating the discussion Mushy Yank already developed above. Reply there. Οἶδα (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CKM NSS Senior Secondary School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV found anywhere and the sources used are entirely primary sources. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yabani

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

I am not sure but want a definitive consensus on the notability of this TV series. First off, the article doesn't meet our guideline per WP:NFP–there is totally a decline of SIGCOV, or maybe because I didn't find either, but I tried searching only to see release dates announcements, etc, and thus, doesn't satisfy WP:SIRS.

On another note, I found out that the additional criteria WP:NFO, and WP:NFIC may push for the userfication, given thoughts that it may still meet notability at the highest release (seems like it has been released), and because it started notable actors and actresses. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if there was a Redirect, what would the target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The target if redirect is chosen could be NOW_(Turkish_TV_channel)#Weekly_series.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it was one of most popular shows of the last season of Turkish TV. Don't have time to look now but I'm sure episodes received significance reviews, attention etc. Tehonk (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to provide the reviews. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 15:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, redirect is better. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Nikhil Nanda#Personal life. Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agastya Nanda

Agastya Nanda (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)

Notability is not inherited–being a member of a notable family is not an exception, infact, it is the true definition. Having asserted above, the article doesn't meet WP:NACTOR because he only started in one or two films, and not multiple. Infact, most of the sources were about the family, and not this young actor. In regards to that, there is more to draftifying and marking as promised because this is a clear issue of WP:TOOSOON. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Iranian films of the 2000s. Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue (film)

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

From the current state of the article, it is clear it doesn't meet WP:NFILM; no critical review from reliable sources or rating in any film rating platform. If sources are found, ping me. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BigID

BigID (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 to establish notability under WP:NCORP. Sources are _almost entirely_ related to fundraising events. Brandon (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panorays

Panorays (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 seemingly lacks any sources aside from trade press. Even then a significant amount of coverage is related to fundraising events. Brandon (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Confused by Delete argument that states a source provides significant coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alexander Heid

Alexander Heid (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)

References, when reliable, do not provide significant coverage of the subject to meet WP:BASIC.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs more participation from editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG per the above referenced sources [1][2] which give significant coverage, the subject was the lead involved in all media interations for the content of the articles. The RollingStone article was coordinated by Heid as he is the founder of the HackMiami organization and the lead media liaison, and assisted in the entire process all the way through fact checking with RollingStone editors - additionally, as reverenced above the subject is mentioned in at least three paragraphs in the RS article.
Re: Financial Times - Heid was not only quoted in Financial Times but his discoveries were published in Forbes and referenced by a Senate Commission which names his employer at the time, and he was also the lead PR liaison with that as well - disclosing his discoveries directly to the press.
The Ars Technica article's content was based on a cybersecurity publication authored by Heid during his tenure at Prolexic, which received significant coverage. Infosecwiki (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Infosecwiki (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
You've added Youtube videos to the article but those are not considered reliable sources. I had removed the ones previously in the article. Please do not continue to add these. Lamona (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to HackMiami. The sources in the article are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of Heid, or else WP:PRIMARYSOURCES like patents or official bios and WP:PROMO fluff like "top 1000-cited papers on blockchain" (look closer: his paper on this list was cited just twice). The sources identified by Ednabrenze do not qualify. The Russ Banham article is self-published. (While it might otherwise count as WP:EXPERTSPS, given his reputation, the policy is very clear to "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.") The Caplin News article is published by Heid's alma mater FIU and written to spotlight him as an alumnus; it fails the test of independence. The sources not holding up to standalone notability, a redirect is an appropriate AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reference the JSTOR, the Blockchain paper was cited over 38 times and has been circulating for over 11 years. Infosecwiki (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote to Keep: The Caplain News article is not an article highlighting alumni, as Heid never graduated from FIU and only attended for a few years in the early 2000s. The Caplain News Article was written by an independent journalist, Antonio Gimenez has authored numerous pieces on cybersecurity luminaries such as YTCracker, his interview subjects have no affiliateion to FIU unless it is coincidence. FIU will not claim the subject as a graduate, hence proof this is not an alumni fluff piece.
    The Russ Banham article is not self published, as the self publishing requirement would dictate that the subject need write the article on their own - Russ Banham is a third party journalist who interviewed the subject and the article was synicated on various outlets. Infosecwiki (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, please read WP:SPS. It doesn't only refer to material by the subject, it refers to any self-published source and Banham is publishing the article on his own site like a blog. I agree, he's an expert reporter, but the policy explicitly restricts self-published sources from being used on BLPs. As for the FIU piece, it specifically describes Heid as a former student (alumnus does not necessarily mean graduate) and it's thus not independent. Finally, please stop !voting "keep" with every comment. You've !voted three times and it appears that you are trying to throw off the conversation. One !vote is enough. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the feedback. I will put it into practice. I updated the reference to include more than just the Caplain article. Infosecwiki (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sourcing in the article is patents, and articles that mention the person in passing. Nothing found for notability otherwise, some PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Patent links removed, replaced with relevant notable content such as documented association with John McAfee. Citations updated for missing citation on conferences. Infosecwiki (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In regards to above, i vote for Keep Infosecwiki (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Infosecwiki, you can only "vote" once so I struck your duplicate votes. Liz Read! Talk! 06:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Infosecwiki, do you have a WP:CONFLICTOFINTEREST that you need to disclose? Above you state that Heid is "the lead media liaison, and assisted in the entire process all the way through fact checking with RollingStone editors." You also state that "he was also the lead PR liaison" on the Financial Times piece. Neither the Rolling Stone nor FT pieces say that Heid coordinated the PR process, and the HackMiami site does not say that either. That's the kind of information that, if true, could only be obtained by someone affiliated with or otherwise close to Heid and HackMiami. That plus the fact that you have only edited on these two topics raises concern that you may have an undisclosed conflict of interest. Can you address this? (P.S. If Heid was involved, as you say, in the production of these articles, that would argue against them being able to meet the independence standard required for notability.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am referring to old Twitter discussions that I remember observing from years ago when the articles were released, I do not have any proof of these claims in present day 2024. I openly disclose I not only edited this article, but I created it over a decade ago. I am fully willing to disclose that I am the original author of this article as well as the HackMiami article. The subject of this piece has had notable accomplishments outside the realm of HackMiami and had a page created, and for the last decade it has stood the test until recent inquiries. I fully support the regular review of this article for continued inclusion, as such diligence is what makes Wikipedia the global standard of information. Infosecwiki (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reminder that editors can only cast one bolded vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The only substantial source is the Florida University piece. Everything else is name checks or brief mentions. It doesn't surprise me that a security expert keeps a low profile. But there isn't enough here for a WP article. Lamona (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Taylor (given name)

John Taylor (given name) (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 indication that this is a double name for any of the entries, rather than just a given name/middle name combo. The bishop actually has a compound surname. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I gave you my rationale, not a "personal preference": WP:NAMB applies. There is no rational purpose for a hatnote to John Taylor in John "Pondoro" Taylor's article, for example. If a reader ends up in the latter article, they're not looking for some other person. FYI, I have finished removing those hatnotes; in a few cases, I replaced them with more sensible ones. The one in John Henry Taylor now points to another John Henry Taylor. Jack Taylor (1890s pitcher)'s hatnote points to Jack Taylor (1900s pitcher), and vice versa. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why you're so passionate about deleting things you dislike unless it's a spectrum issue. Yet given you've announced on my talk page that you're going to delete names, despite no consensus being agreed to on doing so, it seems you've set your mind to acting on whatever you please without considering the use of Wikipedia (especially for those new to the platform) towards anyone but yourself. Many would suggest you abide by the rules of considering the input of community discussions before engaging in mass deletions which will rightfully be reverted. MrEarlGray (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm reluctant to close this when few participants have provided policy-based reasons for Keeping or Deleting this article. This shouldn't come down to a personal preference.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: This is not a matter of personal preferences, as MrEarlGray claims, but rather there is not a shred of evidence that "John Taylor" is a real given name. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is no policy-based rationale offered for deletion, and there is a plain one for keep. Per WP:DAB, "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." And all 14ish people linked on this page have a WP:COMMONNAME that starts "John Taylor". Regardless of whether "John Taylor" was intended to be a double-barreled name like "Mary-Kate" or some such, people searching for on the commonly names of these individuals will experience easier navigation with this page (and it actually helps navigation since it breaks them out from the firstname/lastname John Taylors on the other dab page). (P.S. I removed the bishop with the double-barreled last name who was incorrectly added to this dab page.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rebuttal. No policy-based rationale? The article explicitly claims it is a double name, plus it's right there in the article's title. Where's the evidence that this is another Billy Joe? We don't create lists for any two random names. The search function is quite adequate for that. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Liz: IMO you're missing the point. This is not a given name, so why should a lying article be spared? Something like "Billy-Joe" shows up in name websites,[26][27] as does "Betty Jane",[28][29] but nothing, zilch, nada for "John Taylor" as a given name. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was offerring my opinion on the state of the discussion. But given these challenges, I'll leave this discussion for another closer to handle in case my perception is inaccurate. Let's see how a different closer sees this. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In support of the rebuttal, we have John Taylor (disambiguation) for people actually named John Taylor. None of these people are likely to be known as "John Taylor" since it's their first and middle name and therefore for disambiguation purposes this page would run afoul of WP:PTM. I suppose someone could forget the surname of one of the people listed and just remember the John Taylor part of their name but that's why we have the search function rather than indexing every random first/middle name combo that exists. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D. Christopher Evans

D. Christopher Evans (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 found no significant coverage after multiple searches. The current three sources in the article are an Access Denied page to the subject's non-independent biography, an article by the subject, and a local article about him being appointed. SL93 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first source was already in the article, and both sources are routine coverage. Both sources are just announcements of what the subject did in in his career - being hired and forming his team. SL93 (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, in itself it doesn't contribute much, if anything, towards notability but it provides some sufficiently verified information. Taken as a whole there is enough adequate information for a stub BLP. Personally, I prefer AFD discussions to include only matters that are relevant to article deletion but I realise that some people are not so well aware of our standards or they regard discussions as adversarial rather than inquisitorial. Thincat (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 03:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ashmalee

Mohamed Ashmalee (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 subject fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:Notability (people)/Subnational politicians for the Maldives. Generally, ministers (and subordinates) there are not presumed notable. Otherwise, independent sources lack in-depth coverage on which to base an encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 03:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Payne

Sebastian Payne (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)

Notability of the individual is questionable, and as I've noted before his article is written like a resume. PlateOfToast (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 00:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bharwara Sewage Treatment Plant

Bharwara Sewage Treatment Plant (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)

Unless this is the sewage plant that made the Ninja Turtle, I can see no reason for there to be a stub article for a wastewater treatment plant. I've done a bit of news search and there doesn't seem to be anything spectacular or of note regarding this plant, other than it opened on the birthday of a city/government official. It may have been the largest STP in Asia at one point. Still, I can only find 2 articles that mention that, one in 2014 (and even that article is mostly hidden behind a paywall) and one saying that a scheduled STP in Delhi would surpass it in all areas. Lindsey40186 (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spanish musicians

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

WP:SALAT, the scope of the list is too broad. There are more than 2300 pages in Category:Spanish musicians, this list is useless without further subdivision. Broc (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Lists of people, Lists, and Spain. Broc (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could be subdivided alphabetically when needed Atlantic306 (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Template:Musicians by country shows these articles are common, wouldn't make sense to have one country not on the list. Being incomplete is not a valid reason to delete any article, nor is the arguments "its useless". If there was a bot someone could run to grab basic information from the infoboxes of the articles linked to, and add that to table formation, years active, what type of music they play, etc, it'd be more useful. Dream Focus 00:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument is not that the list is incomplete. A list of 2300 entries would be far too wieldy, and the potential entries that do not yet have a Wikipedia article are even more. According to WP:SALAT Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections, hence my comment about the usefulness of the list. In particular, I am concerned by having an endless and incomplete list of blue links, with no additional information, and no curation. The argument "these articles are common" is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Most of these lists were created in the early years of Wikipedia (when they maybe contained only a handful of entries) and have been kept per status quo, but now have no reason to exist. Broc (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The size of a list is never a valid reason for deletion. Many list simply break off into smaller list when they get too large. List of aircraft, Lists_of_stars#By_proximity, etc. Dream Focus 00:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LISTCRIT -- more specifically, poorly defined inclusion criteria -- what does originating from Spain mean? If a person is born in Spain but moves to another country at an early age, does that count? Or vice versa? What about at a later age? What about citizenship change? What about very old entries where "Spain" then wasn't the same as "Spain" now? Using modern political boundaries as a subdivider is inherently problematic, which brings to my next point -- this is also an unencyclopedic cross-categorization. There's no end to the different combination of ways you could subdivide. Is this using "musician" to subdivide a "list of Spaniards", or is it using "Spanish" to subdivide a "list of musicians"? Why not by style/genre instead? Or birth year? Or alphabetical? This sort of random intersection of properties is best left for Wikidata. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This debate is probably going to end with "no consensus" due to conflicting WP policies. This list of Spanish musicians probably violates WP:SALAT and WP:LISTCRIT because it's just a poorly-defined and never-ending pile of blue links. On the other hand, different WP policies would support this article's existence because of many similar list articles found at Template:Musicians by country. But if you browse all the other country lists, most of them have the exact same problems as this one. I submit that this is a bigger policy challenge beyond assessing the usefulness of this list about Spain, but an AfD discussion almost never results in deeper discussions of larger policy conflicts. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doomsdayer520 I do not see any conflicting policy. I see WP:SALAT and WP:LISTCRIT showing that this stand-alone list should not exist because too broad in coverage and with no clear inclusion criterion. I even see troubles with WP:NLIST as I could not find a single source that publishes a full list of Spanish musicians. I see many entries in Template:Musicians by country that could possibly deleted under the same arguments. Those lists have varied levels of curation and subcategorization, hence might deserve separate discussions. What would you suggest is the right forum for discussion, if not AfD? Broc (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Broc - I agree with your assessment, but look at the "Keep" votes here which are also based on policy. I've seen this happen many times before and it will happen again. Here people will argue about this individual article and nobody will address bigger issues, probably not even the Admin who is guaranteed to say "No Consensus" at the end. Meanwhile, there are folks who discuss policies for lists and others who discuss policies for categories and others who discuss policies for templates etc. etc. etc. Just imagine getting them coordinated. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Standard list for a topic notable as a set, with a clear defining criteria.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899. Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1895 Pacific Tigers football team

1895 Pacific Tigers football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After reviewing this article, I am not convinced that it meets the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. The only source is a database, and I'm not finding the sources needed to meet the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: Two issues with your suggestion: 1) a closer cannot redirect to a redlink so that's not viable unless someone creates it; and (2) is there SIGCOV to support the proposed article? Cbl62 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably worth the editing time to create the proposed article, though, and merging the very small amount of information. The 1898 and 1899 articles aren't in great shape either, and it's possible the game(s) which were played were indeed covered in local papers of the time. SportingFlyer T·C 17:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge now that a target article has been created.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Personally, while I appreciate the work put in by jweiss11, I don't think that the combined article meets the WP:NSEASONS due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could expand the scope of Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899 to include 1919 and perhaps some or all of the 1920s. I think Pacific may have played rugby at some pint between 1900 and 1918, a la 1906–1917 Stanford rugby teams. That could be covered in an expanded article as well. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: My inclination is to Merge but I'm a closer, not a participant, and I don't see a consensus to do that. Another closer might IAR this but I'm not ready to do that yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the merge target of Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899 had already been created (by me per precedent with suggestion from two other editors), what's the point of keeping this AfD open? I don't think there's any consensus to keep this as a stand-alone article. Randy Kryn, you were the only keep vote. Would agree now that the merge to Pacific Tigers football, 1895–1899 is the best course of action? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Jweiss11, that works. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think all editors were in favor of this Merge. But I'm not the only closer in town, another one might decide to close this discussion presently. I just wanted to see more support which Randy's opinion helps. Liz Read! Talk! 02:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, okay, I understand that it's not solely on you to close this. For the record, I'll note two similar recent AfDs with analogous content: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1884 DePauw football team and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1884 Wabash football team. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beanie - I've previously taken the same position, but I think that may be wrong. I think (someone correct me if I'm wrong) merging preserves the edit history of both articles. If that is correct, the merge maintains the attribution history on the original work. Cbl62 (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
* Merge or redirect. Favoring merge if that preserves the attribution history. Otherwise redirect for the reasons outlined by BeanieFan. Cbl62 (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose an admin could perform a WP:HISTMERGE here if that's deemed necessary. But there's never been a whole a lot of substance in this article. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that in the case of 1884 Wabash football team merging to Wabash football, 1884–1889, no history merge was performed. Same for 1884 DePauw football team merging to DePauw football, 1884–1889. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sher Bengali

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

To be frank, this article glorifies our subject despite historical scholarship barely documenting sufficient notability to be included within Wikipedia. Some of the sources in the article do not meet Wikipedia standards. Of those that do, some of them are not about our subject at all and are used to source points irrelevant to our subject. The sources which do mention our subject only mention him in passing, never as a separate topic. Article contains a lot of Original Research to make it look like more notable than it actually was, which can mislead people. In connclusion, this article fails WP:N with no significant level of coverage. Jaunpurzada (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vilangkattuvalasu

Vilangkattuvalasu (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)

Orphaned stub with no sources. Shows no notability. GoldRomean (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel

Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel (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)

For similar reasons as the previous nomination. The page still does not address a notable subject and therefore fails WP:GNG. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 00:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep but balance - It's currently skewed and opinionated, but it's a widely discussed topic that might warrant inclusion. It should possibly be expanded to include famine denial in the other direction. Denialism (and accusations of it) are closely related to misinformation, but not quite the same concept, so it doesn't fit as a section of that article to merge. MWQs (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Walsh90210 (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I keep hearing about people denying that Hamas really did this or that Hamas really did that, mostly rumor-level, so my knee-jerk is that reliable sourcing for an article on this subject probably exists, either under its current subject or refocused to conspiracy theories about the 2023-2024 Israel-Gaza conflict more generally. Per MWQ, I'd be willing to vote keep if we have even one Wikipedian who volunteers to do the considerable work of making the necessary improvements. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. Seems reliable enough sourcing. Needs some rework, its hard to read in some places in its current form. The background section should probably just be an excerpt from the original article. A lot more quotes than necessary too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluethricecreamman (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - POV fork. Carrite (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of which article? gidonb (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would say "merge", but the content of the article is somewhat indiscriminately written, and I don't think it really belongs anywhere. It is citing all kinds of silly stuff like "some people on Reddit said something dumb" -- #wow #whoa. In March 2024 the Israeli firm CyberWell, which uses artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor, analyze and combat antisemitism on social media sounds like it fell off the back of a press kit -- frankly, half the stuff in here sounds like that. We should not just be directly regurgitating stuff we find in PDFs on think tanks' websites about the malnarrative playbook or whatever. jp×g🗯️ 09:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG. Not sure why this was nominated again. There are about 50 references in Hewiki. This means that the subject has been well-covered. There is also legislation to mitigate this denial. The Enwiki article relies heavily on one reference but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Objecting also to the proposed content drift, suggested above. gidonb (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a strong enough consensus yet. There are editors who believe the subject can be notable but the current article is problematic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go through them all in order:
  1. The Jerusalem Post – while the reliability of the Jerusalem Post has not been properly assessed at WP:RS/P, I've seen it used enough that I would say it's probably a mostly fine source, but biased with regard to the Arab-Israeli / Israel-Palestine conflict. The publication may or may not be fine, but the article is just an op-ed.
  2. Calcalist CTech – Not assessed and I haven't heard of this one before, so no comment on the publication. But the article itself says next to nothing on the topic, it just happens to contain the keyword "denial."
  3. The ADL – Not an acceptable source on this subject.
  4. Haaretz – Haaretz is in fact a generally reliable source, though some editors expressed concern that it has a slant with regard to the Arab-Israeli and Israel-Palestine conflict. Opinion pieces should be handled appropriately. The source you've linked to is in fact an opinion piece.
  5. The Sydney Morning Herald – The SMH is in fact a generally reliable source, and this is actually a good article. This is the best one on your list, one of the only ones I'd support being in the article at all. Another point of praise for this article is that its author is the chief reporter for The Age, another generally reliable source.
  6. The Washington Post – WaPo is a generally reliable source, and the one article from them is already the basis of the vast majority of this Wikipedia article. Much of the problematic content in the article cites this WaPo article, such as the sections that give undue weight to random nobodies on the internet and fringe commentators. The outlet is good. The article itself, not so much.
  7. Newsweek – Newsweek is not a reliable source, and hasn't been one since 2013.
  8. The Forward – Not assessed, but this looks like a decent op-ed. It could be used to improve the article, but only for statements of opinion, not for statements of fact.
  9. The Irish Times – Not assessed, but I'll assume it to be reliable. However, the article is simply about a statement that was made by an Israeli ambassador, so it can't really be much help for this article.
  10. Jewish Insider – Not assessed, but this article says essentially nothing about denial or deniers. It just happens to contain the keyword.
  11. The New York Sun – Not assessed, but I am very skeptical considering it's a "conservative outlet" and the author of that article notes in his bio that he proudly worked under Rush Limbaugh for 25 years. Probably not something we'd want to use for Wikivoice statements.
TL;DR: while that long list of sources may look impressive, this does very little to help establish notability.
A lot of the sources on that list are from the same outlet (2 from the ADL, 3 from the Jerusalem Post; multiple articles from the same publication does not increase notability), some of the publications are bad, almost all of them cannot be used for statements of fact, and a few of them have nothing to do with the topic. I don't think very many of these sources are worthy of being in the article. I'll grant that there was actually a good one in there, I think the Sydney Morning Herald article is pretty good. But there's just not enough quality sources on the subject to form an article on it. Op-eds are insufficient for making statements of fact in Wikivoice, and an encyclopedia article on a sensitive subject like denial of a tragedy deserves better quality sources.
I appreciate that you took the time to search for all those articles, it did give me pause, but upon closer examination it made me more comfortable with my delete !vote.
 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep A notable subject, plenty of coverage even a legislative action. - Altenmann >talk 21:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Pass WP:GNG as a notable subject covered by RS. First, the article is not good but, per WP:ARTN, very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Second, there is no policy stating that op-eds from reliable outlets cannot be used to establish notability of a subject. Besides the sources Zanahary has provided above, there are more:
  1. Haaretz, unlike the one provided by Zanahary, this one is not an op-ed
  2. Tagesspiegel
  3. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
  4. Il Foglio
  5. Libération: [36] & [37]
  6. The New Statesman
  7. The Australian
  8. Le Figaro
  9. Il Giornale
  10. La Repubblica
  11. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
  12. academic article in Journal of Genocide Research
  13. academic article in Studies in Conflict and Terrorism
  14. American Jewish Comittee
  15. Jewish Insider
  16. ynet news
  17. i24 News
  18. The Guardian
  19. Jewish News Syndicate
  20. The New York Times
  21. The Atlantic
  22. MSNBC
  23. Die Welt
  24. Star Tribune
-StellarHalo (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – As an alternative to deletion, can I suggest redirecting to Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war? The title is a plausible search term and it certainly has potential to become a standalone article in future. That is, if consensus to delete does form – it looks to me like the discussion is headed towards keeping the article or another "no consensus" result. 5225C (talk • contributions) 19:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC), expanded 19:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect would be a very bad solution as notability has been established beyond doubt and NOT or FORK does not apply. One might consider merger, however, this would create a situation of UNDUE. In other words, the article is a legitimate SPINOFF and should be kept. gidonb (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm open to redirecting or merging as an alternative to deletion. Regardless of independent notability, which I still think is very debatable, another concern we have to take into consideration when discussing if a standalone article is warranted is whether or not the sources used to determine notability can actually be used to develop an article (hence the concern over how >90% of sources on the subject are opinion pieces that cannot be used to make any statement of fact in WikiVoice). Most of the sources on the subject just aren't good enough to develop the article into something better than the miserable one we have now. This page can either exist as a bad article or a good stub. Take the few good sources we have to write 1 good paragraph on the subject, and put it in the Misinformation article. That'd be better for readers than what we have here.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine for me also. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose redirect or merging: I provided 24 new sources above and only the last 6 of those are opinion pieces. There are enough contents to make a standalone article. StellarHalo (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is valid sub-page of Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war - based on the sourcing provided and discussed above on this page. "Opinion pieces" or not, but they are multiple publications in mainstream sources and sufficient to establish notability. My very best wishes (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Express Reservations I haven't checked all of Zanahary and StellarHalo's links, but I checked about 10 of them, and the only one that was actually about the topic (rather than general dissatisfaction with Israel, self-inflicted concern that somebody might deny the attacks, or a few fringe opinions from marginal celebrities) was the SMH piece. The article is barebones as well, trying to make something out of (almost) nothing. Frankly, there is not enough content distinct from Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war for a separate article. But, this will probably be kept as-is anyway. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources listed above, the article clearly meets the requirements for being independently notable. However, the article does require significant improvements.FortunateSons (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn’t seem like a notable enough subject for its own article, and reads more like a personal ramble than anything else Snokalok (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_July_6&oldid=1232997719"