Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 15

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< May 14 May 16 >

Purge server cache

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

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

List of Billboard Hot 100 number-ones by British artists

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AC Ventures (company)

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

Deleted twice under the name

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to K. S. Sethumadhavan#Selected filmography. Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manini (1979 film)

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

Fails GNG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet

WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found listings, interviews, nothing that addresses the subject indepth meeting WP:SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  08:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2009. Star Mississippi 15:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Peshawar judicial complex bombing

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

No lasting coverage or impact to meet

WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

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

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

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

Russian interference in European politics

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

Came across this article when doing research on the

WP:GNG. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 13:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aja Aja Tayo!

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

Appears to fail

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

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

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

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

Delete. Delete as per nom it fails

WP:GNG.Sanwalniazik (talk
)

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

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

Food For Thought (artwork)

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

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

Can you provide a more apt citation for that? That is a travel/promotional magazine, not an art magazine. Also, that article does not mention this work of art. Lamona (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've found some more links rectifying Wanås Sculpture Park as, atleast, internationally reknowned [6], [7],[8]. MusicFromOutoftheOpera (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, you can't use the same notability reference to an artpiece almost 30-years-old but I've done what I could providing proof of this artwork's legacy albeit its growing age. MusicFromOutoftheOpera (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you have provided fit with the Wikipedia definition of
reliable source and none mention this sculpture. I don't think this helps. Lamona (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎.

WP:TRAINWRECK Most of the pages in this multi-AfD have not been discussed, and opinion is split among the ones that have been discussed. signed, Rosguill talk 14:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

2MASX J22550681+0058396

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can try to do that, but given the large number of these new articles, it's a pain to sort them into bundles. I don't know if there's a tool that would make it easier than my manual "copy AFD templates and summaries across pages" process that I used for this one, but doing that for all of the >100 articles would be very slow. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:Galaxybeing, could you please say something about how you are creating these articles, and how you are choosing objects to make pages for? It looks like you've made over 20 new articles in the past week, many of which have the same problems I listed above (all of your new IC pages, for example). Those new IC articles are just stubs that summarize their catalog entries, and I would add all of them to a deletion request like this one. How are you pulling together that summary information so quickly? - Parejkoj (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Tomlab

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

Quick check finds no

WP:ORGIND. A record label is a business/company, therefore it's expected to pass NCORP for it to kept. Graywalls (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 14:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irakli Abuseridze

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

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

Reason for Nomination: All available citations are profiles. Does not meet
WP:NSPORT. Shinadamina (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
In fact I did search for other sources and when doing so, I did not see significant coverage. There is this article, but it is brief. Do you see anything else? If so, please post the links or add to the article. Shinadamina (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Ignoring the back-and-forth accusations of COI/SPA, the arguments on the Delete side are based more on source analysis and guidelines, not to mention being decisively more numerous than the Keep !votes. Owen× ☎ 15:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waqar Zaka

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

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

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

*Keep - meets

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

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

  • Source Assessment Analysis
Source assessment table:
Source
Independent?
 Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?
https://jp.reuters.com/article/crypto-currency-pakistan/pakistan-moves-to-bring-cryptocurrency-boom-out-of-the-dark-idUSL4N2MY2QY/ Yes Yes according to
WP:RSP
, Reuters is a news agency. There is consensus that Reuters is generally reliable, Probably organic source 		~ ~ Partial
https://www.bbc.com/urdu/pakistan-56991694 Yes in Urdu language Yes BBC is renowned to be reliable Yes ✔ Yes
https://web.archive.org/web/20190412131604/https://dailytimes.com.pk/375662/waqar-zaka-to-launch-cryptocurrency-to-help-pakistan-pay-off-its-debts/ ? ? probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1104219 ? ? probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://www.dawn.com/news/448557/chit-chat-meet-waqar-zaka ? ? mere interview No ✘ No
https://tribune.com.pk/story/507331/i-am-giving-pakistanis-a-platform-to-vent-their-frustrations-waqar-zaka/ ? ? probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://tribune.com.pk/story/879155/i-am-the-reason-why-some-people-now-rule-the-entertainment-industry-waqar-zaka/ ? ? probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2020/04/10/waqar-zakas-show-champions-remain-suspended-ihc-rules/ ? ? No Not opening, dead link ✘ No
https://propakistani.pk/lens/#google_vignette No advert site No No ✘ No
https://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1125800 ? ? probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20200413074930/https://www.samaa.tv/entertainment/2020/04/lewd-headphone-show-designed-to-help-audience-insists-waqar-zaka/ ~ ? archived, Probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/1030194-heres-what-weve-gathered-from-the-four-corners-of-the-world No No Probably paid promotion ~ ✘ No
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2448056/waqar-zaka-tried-to-sabotage-my-position-as-a-morning-show-host-nida-yasir ? ? Probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://dailytimes.com.pk/1148194/waqar-zaka-claps-back-at-nida-yasirs-allegations/ ? ? Probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://tribune.com.pk/story/529514/waqar-zaka-hopes-to-go-from-cobra-to-constituency/ ? ? Probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://tribune.com.pk/story/837229/waqar-zaka-says-line-pe-ajao/ ? ? Probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://ecp.gov.pk/Documents/Downloads/General%20Election%202013/Detailed%20Gazzette/Notification%20-%20National%20Assembly.pdf No No Non existent pdf No ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20181128123043/https://www.aaj.tv/2013/04/main-banoonga-minister-waqar-zaka-strives-to-contest-elections/ No Not opening.. Dead link No Not opening.. Dead link ? ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20190419213558/https://www.samaa.tv/lifeandstyle/2019/04/we-may-never-see-waqar-zaka-on-tv-again/ ? ? archived ? ? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20190530064649/http://dunyanews.tv/en/Entertainment/493945-Waqar-Zaka-seeks-apology-nation-destroying-young-minds/ No No archived site ~ ✘ No
https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/396309-arrese No No Probably paid press ~ ✘ No
https://dunyanews.tv/en/Entertainment/467143-Waqar-Zaka-arrested-over-possessing-sheesha-denies-consuming-alcohol ? No Link not opening ~ ✘ No
https://www.samaa.tv/20873698-solo-champion-waqar-zaka-wins-solo-trader-round-of-bitcoin-world-cup ? ? ~ Probably paid promotion ? Unknown
https://www.samaa.tv/20873569-bitcoin-world-cup-waqar-zaka-eyes-victory-ranks-3-among-2-500-traders ? ? Probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://www.brecorder.com/ ? No Probably paid promotion ~ ✘ No
https://www.dawn.com/news/1727704 ? ? Probably Paid press ~ ? Unknown
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1027586-fia-s-final-charge-sheet-accuses-waqar-zaka-of-luring-public-into-illegal-cryptocurrency-trade No No Probably paid press ~ ✘ No
https://www.dawn.com/news/1731030 ? ? Probably paid press ~ ? Unknown
https://www.dawn.com/news/1735220 ? ? Probably paid press ~ ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Comment of the Source analysis': I took out time to carry out source assement for all the 29 sources used. From the above, I found that only two
    WP:SIGCOV are not met by any means. Cheers everyone! Maltuguom (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Maltuguom, I've to disagree with your assessment because you've labeled even those news stories that were critical of Waqar Zaka as "paid.". I'm just curious about why SPAs (like you and Lkomdis (talk · contribs) are showing a lot of interest in this AfD and who seem to only want this BLP deleted. I hope the closing admin will take into account that this isn't solely about WP:GNG but also about WP:NCREATIVE criteria and also probably think about taking SPA comments into account, especially since you haven't been in an AfD since 2020. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RS
    ??.
Mind you! I have participated in AFD n few occassions in the past. I stopped because of the un-encouraging attitidue of editors like you. Why do you add me to an SPI simply because I did what is right and unbiased? I am not in any way linked to that SPI. My account is not a sleeper. I edit when I am free. I came on this to access the sources in line with the wikipedia policy.
Why are you bent on attacking every single vote or comment? It's uncalled for my dear. Let's have a rethink. Allow the admin to take a decision in line with wikipedia policy and guidelines. Cheers.Maltuguom (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maltuguom, You got it wrong in your assessment. Those DAWN news stories aren't unreliable or paid for. In fact, they're critical of the subject. And BBC Urdu didn't just partially feature the subject; they gave it significant coverage, contrary to what you claimed. Anyway, like I said, the BLP should be evaluated based on WP:NCREATIVE because the subject has played major roles in numerous TV shows and a film. And yeah, I filed an SPI because I think there might be some puppetry going on here. It is indeed fishy that an account that hasn't been active in AfD since 2020 suddenly pops up out of nowhere to throw in their 2cents on this AfD, especially when this AfD was originally initiated by a blocked sleeper account. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS. TAside from the BBC, there are no other organic sources cited. Also nothing stops me from participating in several AFD's all through this period just to cover up as most guys do. I won't that. It's not needed. I simply being honest and unbiased. Cheers.Maltuguom (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
You're labelling all Pakistani sources, even the big ones like DAWN and Express Tribune, as unreliable. It's kinda funny, because those are like, the most respected ones in Pakistan. Do you have any proof they're paid? And even if they are, like, who cares? As long as our BLP isn't turning into a PROMO, we're good to go. And even if some links are dead, we can always hit up the Wayback Machine to bring them back to life. And lastly, we're not here to judge based on GNG, but NCREATIVE, and this dude totally fits the bill. Whether the coverage is paid or not doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with @
WP:RS requires independence (Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy). While I disagree with much of the above source analysis, simply hand-waving away lack of independence doesn't mean "we're good to go." As an experienced editor currently participating in a lot of deletion discussions, I assume you know this, so I'm not sure what's motivating the above comment. Oblivy (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
TV shows/films Roles Reference
Living on the Edge
Pakistan's most popular TV reality show		 Director [1][1][2][3]
XPOSED Creator and host [4][5]
King of Street Magic Creator and host [5]
Desi Kudiyan Creator and host [4][5]
The Cricket Challenge Creator and host [5]
BOL Champions season 1 Executive producer [6]
Babylicious Executive producer [5][6]
The Musik Director and producer [1][7]

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

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

References

  1. ^ a b c "Chit chat Meet Waqar Zaka". DAWN.COM. 7 March 2009. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
  2. ^ "Qandeel Baloch: Unmasking Patriarchy in Death". The Wire. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
  3. ^ "What being 'bold' means for women". Herald Magazine. 9 November 2017. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
  4. ^ a b "The Wire: The Wire News India, Latest News,News from India, Politics, External Affairs, Science, Economics, Gender and Culture". thewire.in. 13 January 2018. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
  5. ^ a b c d e "Waqar Zaka bore brunt of being critic of PTI policies". www.24newshd.tv. 26 June 2023. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
  6. ^ a b Shan, Muhammad Ali (29 June 2023). "Waqar Zaka Steps Into Film Production: "Babylicious" Reviving Pure Romance In Pakistani Films". BOL News. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
  7. ^ Salman, Peerzada (29 June 2023). "Premiere for Babylicious held". DAWN.COM. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
  • Delete He was the host of some non notable shows in the past. Shows are lacking notability not because they dont have wikipidea page but because there is insufficient coverage on google. The available coverage about him is also limited, often focusing on crypto currency activites. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like you're thinking this vote is payback just because I nominated some pages for deletion that were made by UPEs. Because seriously, how can you just brush off those reliable sources that clearly say he was the creator, director or producer of those shows I mentioned in the table and that there's not enough coverage about Zaka's shows. Seriously? Every single one of his shows is all over legit sources. Like, come on! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this statement from The Wire says it all "Zaka started his television career in the early 2000s and gained recognition as the host and director of Pakistan’s first adventure/dare game show, Living On The Edge. Other shows he is recognised for, and sometimes ridiculed, include XPOSED, Desi Kuriyan and Video On Trial."
I'll be honest, I don't have any sense of how important Living on the Edge is. The rest of it seems clearly to fail on "significant". Note that #1 is an interview which should get low or no weight.
@
WP:AGF do you perhaps want to strike your comment about payback? Oblivy (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
No, I'm not backing down from what I said. It's super obvious if one check out Libraa2019 involvement in AfDs and why they voted to delete here. It's like a total retaliation vote.This editor is all over creating and editing bios of not-so-famous actors, but they voted to delete this BLP just because I said keep. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite numerous warnings, you are contineously harrasing me by calling me UPE/sock on multiple platforms without any single evidence, i will report you to admin for this. Retaliation is what you are doing and i am unable to understand what is your motive behind insulting me everytime. Being a Pakistani editor with interest in Entertainment, i have all the rights to participate in Pakistani related article's AFD and share my opinion. As far as my creations are concerned, they have already kept in AfD because community is thinking they are notable [9]. You are not an admin to decide whether the BLP is notable or not. All you can do is respect others opinion which is not that much hard, dont you think? Libraa2019 (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Libraa2019, Could you please share here diffs if I recently accused you of being a UPE or even a sock? This SPI was filed by someone else, not me. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You endorsed that SPI by connecting me with another user without any solid evidence [10], even wrote on Wikimedia Commons "the user is socking on English WP" [11], you accused me of socking on commons without any evidence. You initiated AFD's by calling me UPE [12] [13], all of my creations are nominated by you with similar statements & i am unable to understand your behaviour as many editors have told you that my picking of sources is correct and they recognized my efforts [14], [15], [16], [17] [18] but you objected all of them and you want yourself to be proven correct everytime. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, close to the borderline of
    WP:NCREATIVE per the sources available and before search results. I agree with the source analysis to a high extent but I have a little bit of doubt as to how all the national media platforms listed are not reliable. What I found was that those specific articles from some of the sources are unreliable because some appear as PR or paid for articles. The BBC and Reuters articles are reliable but not enough to establish clear cut notability. The publisher of this [19] may be reliable but the specific article cited here is unreliable because it is an interview and the headline itself says it all “Chit Chat Meet Waqar Zaka”. This [20] is a mere passing mention of the subject. This [21] and this [22] appear organic but I suspect a PR material pretending to be an organic press article. These two sources are published in two different newspapers but their completely same from byline to headline and the body of the article. My suspicion is particularly heighted for the fact that most news outlets named The Wire are always news agencies distributing PR materials. The date of publication of the article in Herald shows Updated 10 November 2018 while at the bottom it say the article was first published in June 2017 Issue. Then it was published in The Wire on 13 January 2018. This may be a PR campaign. This [23] seems to be a paid press announcing the release of the film, it was an objective review of the film it would have been clear where this source stands. This [24] is a clear sponsored post instructing people interested in his show to download an app of the sponsors of the program. These [25] [26] sources only gave passing mentions are simply in the article populate it. Several links seem dead and can’t be accessed for an assessment. For the trial, it does not seem to be a serious trial because the before search did not turn up strong media coverage expect of a person possibly being tried by the state. Using a few sources about the trial may mean that subjects who are charged for all kind of offences and received two or media coverage may want to use that for their qualification for a Wikipedia page. Piscili (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Piscili, I repeat this shouldn't be judged on GNG but on the NDIRECTOR / NPRODUCER. And by the way, I'm still wondering why there's a bunch of SPAs throwing in their delete votes on this AfD. You've only been in three AfDs since you joined WP. What drew you to this one? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Did you make 100 AFD votes at once when you started voting (commenting) in AFD? I have only three or four AFD comments but slowly it will build up to a great number. And I take my time to analyse sources I do not want to be commenting Delete per nom.. Why attacking me for my comment? In the past couple of weeks I was active in Recent Changes Patrol and now I am expanding to other parts of this collaborative work. But even IP address can comment in AFD why can't I comment too? Why is AFD so toxic? Piscili (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Piscili, I'm not the only one with suspicions about you. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I have made my comments and only closing admins will decide the merit of my comment. I should be able to freely comment in any AFD I chose to but what you are doing now is intimidation for whatever reason best known to you. I am here to help uphold the editorial guidelines not to please any one. If you disagree with my critical analysis of sources so be it. Only admins are the judges here if they decide otherwise in this AFD I am fine with it. That will be a learning curve for me. Piscili (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The most recent source assessment does a good job of highlighting the PROMO issues I have with the sources. Even if we consider his being director of a couple shows as sufficient for NCREATIVE--which I don't--that is still only a presumption of notability, while per N (WHYN) establishing notability requires multiple pieces of SIGCOV in IRS even for subjects that pass SNGs. JoelleJay (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • JoelleJay, I disagree with @Maltuguom's source assessment. They labeled every single source except, BBC and Reuters, as unreliable and paid, even though most of the coverage was critical of the subject, like in these examples: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this etc. From what I understand, subjects are considered notable if they are directors, producers, or even if they have significant roles (incliding creators) in TV shows. This guy meets all those criteria. I'm curious why we have BLPs on less famous Pakistani actors but not for someone who is a popular, albeit controversial, TV figure in Pakistan. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So every director and producer is notable just because they produce or direct just a few movies? It is deeper than you think. There must be significant coverage to meet those notability criterion. Ludamane (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ludamane, Why not? This section states People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Such as The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per source analysis to which I have nothing much to add. This is a non notable subject and should wait until such a time when notability meets at least
    WP:ANYBIO. Articled contains so much unreliable sources. Ludamane (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Here's another sleeper account joining the AFDs for the first time, i guess! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have taken ownership of this AFD otherwise why throwing accusation at every editor that comment in this AFD? I have read countless AFD discussions with lengthy threads more than this particular one but never have I seen single editor being uncivil in their discussion as you do here. This is a non-notable subject and majority opinion show that this subject does not meet any notability criterion. Ludamane (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not implying that everyone here is a sleeper account, but it's worrisome that some including you who've never engaged in AfDs before are suddenly joining in, especially when this AfD itself was initiated by a sleeper account. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not check who initiated this AFD and my position here is based on the unreliable sources in this article. Subject is not notable and there is no need wasting so much time and energy on this. Ludamane (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't seem logical to label respected Pakistani publications like DAWN and The Express Tribune as unreliable sources. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article from the DAWN is a very short interview and that's mostly categorised under primary sources more so that that interview was very trivial and did not discuss any serious issue of much public interest Ludamane (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Saqib, please stop. You opened a SPI about 2 users who !voted Delete, not sure it was appropriate nor wether it will be endorsed but that should be enough. Assume good faith and consider NOT commenting on every !vote that does not go your way. I generally don't comment on behaviour issues unless I am personally involved, but your comments do not seem to be made in a constructive spirit (and that is an understatement, believe me). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We've got over 6 editors voting for deletion here, but I've only filed SPI on 3 of them, not all. My worries are totally legit. These 3 sleeper accounts, never even glanced at Pakistani pages before, NOR ever participated in AfDs before. Anyway, I'm throwing in the towel on this one. Don't really care if this BLP sticks around or not, but I'm still scratching my head over why someone's going all out to axe this BLP. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but that is simply not true. Piscili and Ludamane are not "sleeper" accounts and they had participated in AfDs before. I have no time to comment anymore on the issue, sorry. Still, I'm inviting you again to change your approach. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mushy Yank, Sure, I'm stepping back from this now. But before I bow out, I've to say that this is seriously risky. Anyone could get a BLP wiped out like this, even if the subject clearly meet WP:N. I dropped a note on your tp explaining that this subject isn't just some ROTM figure in Pakistan. He's controversial, sure, but undeniably popular and gets loads of press coverage in RS. And here's an interesting tidbit: even Jimmy Wales himself once edited this BLP. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mushy Yank, you need to see this [27] [28] its the hatred i received just for sharing my opinion. Libraa2019 (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Buffalo International Jewish Film Festival

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

It exists, but doesn't have the significance or coverage to meet

WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiba Ali Khan

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

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

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

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

The News International, an interview which is not considered independent.
ARY News, Falls under NEWSORGINDIA but it does include a video of an interview she gave. Unfortunately, it is still an interview and the information is not considered indepdent.
Dawn, mentions her as part of the cast. Verifies role but verifiability is not notability.
ARY News, same as the ARY News assessment above.
City 42, announcement of her marriage. It does say she changed her name but searching that name found no references suitable to show notability.
Dawn, another one that mentions her name to verify a role, but does not talk about her outside of that. Brief mention only.
Daily Times, Falls under NEWSORGINDIA, but even if disputed, it still only verifies a role. Her name is mentioned one time. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Acsess Business Academy

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

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Tribalism and regionalism in Zimbabwe

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

This topic is pretty certainly notable but I think this calls for

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

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of South Park characters#Clyde Donovan. Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Donovan

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

Non notable character. Fails

WP:ITSIMPORTANT. -1ctinus📝🗨 22:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I am interpreting the course of discussion as having 2 editors making reasoned arguments for keep, 1 making a reasoned argument for deletion, and nominator making reasoned pivots between mostly delete-oriented arguments and a "keep for now" view (which itself seems almost like a !vote for no consensus outright). I assigned no weight to the final keep !vote with an incomprehensible rationale. signed, Rosguill talk 14:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Anti-Imperialist Platform

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

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

I checked the new references. Nothing new regarding the main issue, still no independent coverage of the organization much less GNG coverage. I actually WANT that coverage to be found and thus for the article to exist. There are lots of critiques of them and of their positions by communist organizations. Maybe that's enough to keep via
WP:IAR North8000 (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete. A lack of independent, non-partisan coverage of the subject of this article. Although there is certainly controversy among communists over the ideological stances of this organization, this is of little relevance to readers who are not communists or otherwise familiar with the ideological positions of this group. Further, this organization is more-or-less an ideological extension of the CPGB-ML, so any criticism that does or will exist from third-parties would likely be more focused on that particular party or any other major member parties. SociusMono1976 (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.
The presence of criticisms by other communist organizations suggests a level of engagement within a specific community or ideological sphere that could warrant further examination. These criticisms from within the community provide context and demonstrate that the organization has sparked discussion and controversy, which is a form of coverage and recognition. While some editors question the sources of the critiques, this is not uncommon in the coverage of niche or emerging political movements, especially those with a specific ideological leaning. The inclusion of external criticisms — even if from ideologically aligned groups — does serve to broaden the discussion about the platform beyond its self-representation. Additionally, the fact that these external sources bother to critique the organization lends weight to its relevance in its sphere. Wikipedia's notability guidelines do not strictly require that all articles at all times must have extensive media coverage. For niche political organizations, the requirement can be met through significant coverage in specialized publications or through the impact demonstrated in inter-group communications and critiques. Wikipedia's goal is to provide a comprehensive database of knowledge that includes all verifiable perspectives, including those from smaller or less mainstream entities. The existence of an article on a potentially lesser-known but ideologically significant organization like the World Anti-Imperialist Platform contributes to this goal. The community has a strong preference for improving articles rather than deleting them when possible. If the current references are deemed insufficient, the appropriate response would be to tag the article for needing additional citations from independent sources, rather than outright deletion. The inclusion of ruling political parties from countries like Venezuela, Guinea-Bissau, and North Macedonia elevates the organization's political significance. These countries' involvement is not only a testament to the platform's influence but also to its relevance in international politics. This kind of international collaboration among ruling parties inherently suggests a level of notability that deserves recognition and documentation on Wikipedia. The participation of such significant political entities justifies an argument for the preservation and further development of the article. Wikipedia's guidelines on notability do not strictly require exhaustive coverage in mainstream media if the subject can be demonstrated to have significant impact or involvement by notable entities. The involvement of ruling parties should be considered a form of significant coverage. The organization’s connections to countries with notable geopolitical profiles—especially Venezuela, known for its significant international political interactions—underscore the importance of the platform in understanding global geopolitical dynamics. This aspect alone provides a substantial basis for keeping the article, as it serves as a critical piece of the puzzle in understanding international alignments and ideological conflicts. Deleting or undermining the presence of such an article could result in a significant gap in the available information about a notable international coalition that influences political opinions and actions. It is crucial for Wikipedia to represent such entities accurately and comprehensively to fulfill its mission as an encyclopedia that covers the full spectrum of human knowledge. Rather than deletion, this situation presents a clear opportunity for improvement. Encouraging contributors to seek additional independent secondary sources that discuss the platform's activities and influence could enhance the article's quality and reliability. This approach aligns with Wikipedia's principles of verifiability and neutrality while ensuring that significant political entities are appropriately represented. Castroonthemoon (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of two minds on this. Even if it is just a mysterious front organization for Russian operatives (which is my current best guess it is and the Greek Communist party seems to hint at [34] ) then perhaps it would be good to have an article if only to eventually expose it. But to build an article we need sources to build it from and we basically have zero sources about this mysterious organization. We have them talking about themselves, we have communist organizations critiquing their stances and a few short "we attended an event of theirs" sources. The WP:notability requirment basically is "we have sources which cover the subject". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting that you mention that. The primary challenge with the subject material is that it’s a supranational organization composed mainly of communist parties. It’s not a centralized entity but rather a congress of 50 parties and organizations, multiple of which form or take part in the governments of their respective countries. Supranational organizations often do not make headlines, as evidenced by the noticeable lack of notable sources in the list of Political international articles. Among the notable articles covering the platform that I’ve found, I can’t use them as they are from Russia Today or other sources deemed less reliable by Wikipedia. This highlights a broader issue of sourcing when it comes to international and especially non-Western political movements. The absence of coverage in mainstream Western media should not be a default barrier to notability, particularly when the subject has a significant impact on the political or ideological landscape of multiple countries. Another issue with this organization is that it includes only a few English-speaking organizations, which explains why outlets like MSNBC, CNN, etc. have not covered it. However, this does not inherently diminish its notability or significance. The substantial opposition to the World Anti-Imperialist Platform (WAP) from other parties underscores its notability. As you mentioned the Communist Party of Greece, it's also worth noting the emerging split in the international communist context between KKE-aligned anti-Russian parties and pro-Russian WAP parties, a division that should be crucial to document. Castroonthemoon (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again I'm of two minds of this.....actually I sort of want this article to exist. But let me play devil's advocate on critiquing your argument. It is a mysterious organization which has gotten some communist organizations so declare thermselves members or attend their conferences. You speak as if it is some organization consisting of those members, but there is no evidence or coverage of it really being that. There is zero evidence/coverage of it being a real organization governed by those members. Even on their own website, there is nothing indicating that it is an actual organization. No leaders or officers, no mechanism of how it is governed or how the participants play into that governance. So how are we to cover this entity with absolutely zero independent coverage of it as an entity? North8000 (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

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

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Quatuor Habanera

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

I couldn't find sources to show it meets

WP:MUSICBIO. Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

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

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

Alina Dikhtiar

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

Fails

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

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

  • Comment: There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of
    WP:SPORTCRIT for some reason. And !votes relying only on NSKATE are likewise invalid. That said, it's quite possible that most of these should be delete or redirect results. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 01:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

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

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

Chloé Dépouilly

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

Fails

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

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

  • Comment: There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of
    WP:SPORTCRIT for some reason. And !votes relying only on NSKATE are likewise invalid. That said, it's quite possible that most of these should be delete or redirect results. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 01:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

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

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

Ivan Dimitrov (figure skater)

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

Fails

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

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

  • Comment: There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of
    WP:SPORTCRIT for some reason. And !votes relying only on NSKATE are likewise invalid. That said, it's quite possible that most of these should be delete or redirect results. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 01:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raphaël Bohren

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

Fails

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

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roxana Boamfă

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

Fails

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

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

  • Comment: There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of
    WP:SPORTCRIT for some reason. And !votes relying only on NSKATE are likewise invalid. That said, it's quite possible that most of these should be delete or redirect results. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 01:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids without prejudice against selectively merging some content. There is rough consensus not to keep the article as is, and a redirect is a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 15:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nominating based on

talk) 14:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

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

Redirect to
WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Profitis Ilias Church, Santorini

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

Just a church. The article fails to make clear what makes it notable and its source is an image title from a self-published image in a tourist site. In general, it lacks significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources (see

WP:NBUILD). Not to be confused with the Profitis Ilias Monastery in the same island. C messier (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete (as article creator) - support deletion on
    WP:NBUILD grounds, and with some years of hindsight. Looked quickly for some reliable sources, and was not able to find anything in depth relating to this church in particular (not the Profitis Ilias Monastery, nor the Profitis Ilias ridgeline). SamHolt6 (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. czar 21:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bharti-Bharat-Kamdi

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

Fails

WP:GNG. Never elected to any political office that can make them inherently notable, and being a candidate from a political party for the upcoming election does not make them notable either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

Marilyn Faye Parney

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

WP:BEFORE search of proper media archives, I'm not finding much to salvage it with -- I found a few hits of "local woman does stuff" in Saskatoon's local media, but nothing that would support a meaningful notability claim under NMUSIC, and mainly I just found concert listings.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to get over GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete She doesn’t seem to have the necessary sources and coverage, but I’m open to keeping the article if those sources can be found. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

International Studies Charter High School

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

Unclear how this passes

WP:NSCHOOL CDotSkelly (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Barfi Laddu

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

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

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

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

V. Y. Bezel

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

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

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

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

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

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


The result was delete. Consensus is clear. BD2412 T 15:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JSX Flight 284

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

Minor incident, no

WP:LASTING effects. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, another article only notable among aviation buffs. Borgenland (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Freddy McKinney

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

This article is about a storm chaser who received temporarily media coverage for being first on the scene of a destroyed home where all the occupants were severely injured and he rushed them to the hospital. This is the only notable coverage he has ever received. This article fails notability guidelines, specifically

WP:1E, and should be deleted. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 17:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

Richard Beck (music manager)

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

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

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

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

BBX Music

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

An article for a non-notable record label that was created by the owner of the record label himself. Not only is this article a clear

WP:GNG failure as well. λ NegativeMP1 17:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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


The result was keep. Consensus is clear. BD2412 T 15:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IndyCar Series on NBC

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

WP:PRIMARY, focusing less on the broadcastings (usually about the series or one of the announcers) and those otherwise unsourced; none of these helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stanley Cup playoffs broadcasters (Original Six era)

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

WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of nothing but YouTube posts; not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

Peter D'Agostino

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

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

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


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

List of NFL draft broadcasters

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

WP:PRIMARY, YouTube posts, announcements, dead and redirected pages and some heavily focuses on the events itself; none of these doing anything to help this list to assert notability. Also, created by a banned sock. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 17:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Ramjas School, Anand Parbat

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

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

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


The result was delete. BD2412 T 13:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty Fifth Indian Expedition to Antarctica

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

Simply a list of people, with no sources, or literally anything else other than a list of people. An XfD was attempted in the past, with no consensus. Trying again since there have been literally no edits to the page since the XfD was closed.

talk) 15:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Not sure if relevant, but there were no participants in the last XfD.
talk) 15:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 17:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Azealia Banks' controversies

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

I believe this article (a borderline attack page, which has had some material suppressed) is an unnecessary fork from Banks' main article and goes against the spirit of

WP:NOTNEWS; especially given how Banks has attacked and criticized most mainstream celebrities at this point. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 14:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

Peter Berlin (lawyer)

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

Fails

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

WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

2025 FIFA Club World Cup qualifying

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

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

Hello. I understand that there is repeated information, but other information is not. The ranking system is nowhere to be found, as it is deleted from the main page every time the teams qualified by ranking. What I propose is that if the page is deleted, the tables be placed somewhere, either in the articles of the continental tournaments, or in the Club World Cup article. If you tell people that a team is qualified by ranking and at no time show them that ranking, they will not understand it Largopajero (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will give you an example. In argentine Primera Division the relegation is defined by a table made up of several tournaments, there is no tournament that defines it, but the table is shown somewhere. In this case we can't even put a link to the 4-year confederations' ranking because it is nowhere to be found. It must appear somewhere.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Argentine_Primera_Divisi%C3%B3n#Relegation_based_on_coefficients Largopajero (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per nom. Unnecessary fork, the ways in which the clubs qualifyed could be in the main article. Svartner (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. But the tables are eliminated when the teams qualify. If that didn't happen, I would never have made this page. I have no problem moving them to the main article if they are not deleted, otherwise I feel like the rankings should stay somewhere. Largopajero (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per nom. Also considered an unnecessary fork. I consider that it is more appropriate to list just the teams in contention at the main
    WP:NOTSTATS. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
What I believe is that somehow you have to show people how the team qualified. If you simply say that it was due to ranking, there is no information because the ranking is not found anywhere. Largopajero (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All qualified clubs via continental championship and the 4-year ranking are more than enough sourced in the main article. The ranking can also be seen in this specified source FIFA Club World Cup 2025™ Confederations ranking - inside.fifa.com. It is no real qualifying competition to meet
WP:GNG as a stand-alone article. Miria~01 (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree, but surely the table will be deleted when the new classification begins. It will not remain for the archive. Furthermore, if being able to see the tables on an external website is enough, there should not be any tables on Wikipedia Largopajero (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you don't want to overload the main article with tables, that's why I created another one separately. I insist that it has information that is not found anywhere on Wikipedia. What I propose is that if you decide to delete the article, find a place to show the tables and how the teams qualified by ranking. Largopajero (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information on rankings is referenced, at the current FIFA reference or at Footy rankings.com. An alternative to tables that reduce and disappear is to restore to the main article the table for each Confederation showing the figures of just the small subset of teams that did qualify by this method. Again, that can be accommodated at the main article, small tables so it doesn't unbalance the whole article, and not as a fork to a separate article. Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree. Again, I feel like the tables should be somewhere, I only made this article because on the main page they were deleted when the qualifications were resolved. I believe that showing the qualifieds and the first team eliminated (to reference the score to be overcome), is enough Largopajero (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Club 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total
Argentina River Plate 22 23 19 13† 77
Argentina Boca Juniors 18 18 35 71
Paraguay Olimpia 20 11 26 57
  • Coment Many arguments for deleting the article justify that it is not a qualifying tournament or that there is information that is repeated from the main articles of the confederation tournaments.
I think that something similar happens in the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification, where five of the six confederations use their continental tournaments as qualifiers.
Even in this article there is more repeated information because the entire knockout stage brackets are in the article.
I think that in a split article it is normal for information to be repeated. It is a good opportunity to define a design for this new form of qualification, which is unprecedented. Largopajero (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Joerg Stadler

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

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

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

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

Martin Suchý

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

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

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

WP:V
.

Sources that came up in my search regarding the AfD target were trial in Příbram, an interview by Deník, injury update, and another interview by SME that covers his current life. In my opinion, none of them are independent coverage that signal

WP:GNG. Corresponding articles in other languages are unsourced stubs (I checked and translated them). Clara A. Djalim (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Page fails
WP:SPORTCRIT. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 13:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Sourcing has been found to exist. This does not preclude discussion of a merger if this would be better covered somewhere else, but support for deletion isn't clear Star Mississippi 12:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bez-MX

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

DePRODed with the rationale that coverage of the game in two reviews meets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ]

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

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

Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (denomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Delete per
    WP:SIGCOV. The sources are either a walled garden type or passing mentions in directories. This is yet another non-notable splinter Calvinist group. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Khan (actor)

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

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

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

References

  1. ISSN 1943-6149
    .
  2. ISSN 1071-4413
    .
  3. ^ "Hasan Khan". The News International.
  4. ^ "Hasan Khan — the superstar of tomorrow". The News International.
  5. ^ "Stunning and brilliant – Hasan Khan". The News International.

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete: The
    WP:GNG Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability so at best they count as a single source. As stated by TimothyBlue, the other sources are brief mentions, press releases, promo, or routine coverage and the CLF award is a non-notable award. S0091 (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. ✗plicit 11:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elmir Valiyev

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article claims that he is "Head of the Administrative Legislation Sector of the National Assembly of Azerbaijan", which would seem to pass
WP:NPOL. I haven't found any sources that would verify that claim, though. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The original Azerbaijani term that's being translated as "Administrative Legislation Sector" seems to be İnzibati qanunvericilik sektorunun. The current head of that sector, according to the official website, is Kamala Maarif ghizi Pashayeva, but that doesn't rule out Elmir Valiyev having been the head in 2017. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wayback Machine only goes back to 2021 for that page. The 2017 version of the website wasn't available in English as far as I can tell, but I was able to find a photo of him on there from 2017, suggesting that he had at least some kind of position in the National Assembly. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the URL of that image contains the words yeni ("new") and sektorlari ("sectors"). jlwoodwa (talk) 04:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The URL also spells his name as "elmir_vliyev", but a search for "Elmir Vliyev" doesn't turn up anything. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, this article about his resignation as "Board Chairman of the Public Union Kapaz Professional Club" in 2018 doesn't mention any connection with the National Assembly, and instead gives context about his father. That would be a strange omission if he actually was head of a sector of the National Assembly. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing
WP:GNG, unless his claimed position in the National Assembly can be verified. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Sachal Afzal

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

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

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

References

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

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

It's not a paid interviews. The News International newspapers has interviewed many other actors and models too and it writes every important news. The News International is owned by Jang News Group which is one of the oldest newspaper in Pakistan. The News International is a major English newspaper in Pakistan.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
I'm not questioning the credibility of the sources, but rather the interviews themselves. While it's common for actors to be interviewed, these interviews alone may not sufficiently demonstrate that the subject meets the WP:GNG or WP:N. Additionally, these interviews (primary coverage) are not sufficient to verify claims of significant roles in TV dramas/films —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who contributed to this page, how can we substantiate if these itws were "staged" or not, and if we can't, shouldn't we assume that the default position is that they aren't ? Also he's one of the leading male models of the country and one of the rising actors as well (secondary roles in the leading productions of the country), he has awards and nominations in both fields, shouldn't that be enough to assert his "credibility" ? Metamentalist (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its essential to apply WP:COMMONSENSE when assessing coverage to asses its credibility. In this instance, the coverage seems to align more with WP:NEWSORGINDIA and exhibits characteristics of WP:CHURNALISM-style reporting.Your statement seems to suggest WP:ILIKEIT. To substantiate your stance, you'd need to provide evidence demonstrates the subject meets WP:N —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The News International" is a credible newspaper of the country, not some "yellow journalism" directed towards rumors about celebrities or something, so I was submitting the proposition that the first assumption should be positive and not negative, and my second point is that even if you do admit the source are refutable the man is still one of the best known male models in the country as well young actors (as substantiated by awards and nominations, also sourced). Metamentalist (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that The News itself isn't reliable, but rather this specific piece which doesn't quite cut it to meet WP:RS and establish subject's WP:N. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that info is confirmed by another source (Express Tribune, also "credible") & also does that impact the fact that the WP:N is met by the fact that he's one of the most awarded male models of the country + an actor in some of the country's most watched dramas produced by the best known media houses ? Metamentalist (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BeauSuzanne and Metamentalist The subject clearly fails to meet the GNG, and neither of you has been able to provide solid evidence thus far. When examining this through the lens of WP:NACTOR, a Google search also hasn't yielded anything substantial to prove that the dramas/films in which he acted are significant works. Therefore, the subject fails to meet the NACTOR - even if he played lead roles in them, BUT I haven't seen verification of that either. It appears he only did MINOR roles, and I can say this with certainty. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Promo BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, are mainly promo bios, interviews, and name mentions in routine mill news, BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS. Above sources are interviews, [45]. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  19:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Award winning model and an actor. Meets

WP:GNG.Sameeerrr (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet) S0091 (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 12:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha–Nizam wars

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

This article clearly fails

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

Hey!!
I have noticed that there is a discussion happening about the articles on the Maratha-Nizam wars. I am eager to participate and cast my vote for the article. After thoroughly reviewing the content, I have concluded that it comprehensively covers all the necessary information, supported by reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.I think that all the paragraphs in the article accurately depict the context and are verifiable according to Wikipedia guidelines
WP:VERIFY
.
Here is one source that mentioned it as maratha nizam wars:
•Britannica:[46]
•Britanicca(for further details):[47]
  • I think britannica is a better and clearly citing source for the article.It's verifiability and reliability can be checked at ->
•[48]

Timeline isn't mentioned in the heading of article but it is mentioned in the infobox.If there are any doubts some some sources are definitely needed for a better understanding about the timeline with the citation.But if article is undergoing deletion because of it's heading than the Britannca is one of the sources that cites it as 'Maratha -Nizam War' not as 'Anglo-Maratha War'.[49]

  • Suggestion:It is recommended that the editors and administrators involved in this matter thoroughly examine all sources and make decisions from a neutral Favourable Renaming the article to 'Maratha-Nizam War' instead of 'Maratha-Nizam Wars' would be appropriate as the Britannica source also refers to it in the singular form, given that the article primarily covers individual battles rather than overarching conflicts.
Thanks!! Kemilliogolgi (talk) 10:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean, but the source you shared doesn't cover the Maratha-Nizam war in its body instead it spun around the Anglo-Maratha wars. If you'll search "Maratha-Nizam war" under Britannica's sort searching then you won't find any article on Maratha Nizam war through filter searching under Britannica again I don't know how you concluded that it covers this topic while we don't find a single article on it. We know that Britannica is
WP:RS but as I said it doesn't even cover this topic so kindly provide sources for Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.
Timeline isn't mentioned in the heading of article but it is mentioned in the infobox, that's the issue we don't find this particular timeline in any source. The author too is clearly aware of this therefore they didn't cite any source for this timeline. It's clearly a mix of several hostilities between Nizam, Marathas, Anglos and French and represented as "Maratha Nizam war". Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep: The nominator clearly lacks an understanding of what
    British East India Company
    , the French, or any other entities. I am listing the sources that explicitly state "Maratha-Nizam War(s)".
  1. [50]
  2. [51]
  3. [52]
  4. [53]
  5. [54]
  6. [55]
  7. [56]

822 results in JSTOR [57] almost 3,000 results in ProQuest[58]. and we have several other sources that do not explicitly mention "Maratha-Nizam wars" but provide detailed descriptions of the entire conflicts (a lot in the article itself). I will await the nominator to post the synthesized part on the talk page. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not a platform for someone to boast their ego.--Imperial[AFCND] 16:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator clearly lacks an understanding of what, then why don't you show us a single source covering this event as Maratha-Nizam war (1720-1819)?
Neither the Anglo-Maratha wars nor the French-Maratha conflicts are included; technically, it's feasible to add them since the article's scope covers conflicts between two parties be sure. Is it conflicts or wars? It's clearly noticeable from the artificial timeline of this event (1720-1819) that it's heavily synthesized.
the Nizam and the Marathas, regardless of whether they were supported by the British East India Company, the French, or any other entities. I am listing the sources that explicitly state "Maratha-Nizam War Now that is
WP:DONTHOAX
. Now let us look at the sources provided by you. The first two sources are identical.
  • [59] only gives insights of Maratha-Nizam war of 1751-52 but there's no Maratha nizam war 1720-1819 as currently the timeline decided by the author.
  • The third one [60] only talks about Maratha-Nizam hostilities of 1785-1787 again there's no mention of Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.
  • Fourth source [61] is not accessible so it'd be helpful if you provide a quotation for the Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.
  • Coming to the 5th source [62] again not accessible so provide a quotation for Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819
  • Next [63] only found a topic of "Maratha-Nizam relations" I wonder if this led you to the conclusion of Martha-Nizam war 1720-1819.
  • At last, [64] this also can't be accessed so provide a quotation for Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.
Now coming to filter/sort keyword searching through JSTOR and ProQuest. Anyone can see that, It gives NO result for even the "Maratha-Nizam War" as a whole forget including timeline, all we see is individual results for Maratha and Nizam. So that's how you concluded that it has almost 3800 results (from both JSTOR and ProQuest)?
You have yourself yelled that we have several other sources that do not explicitly mention "Maratha-Nizam wars" but provide detailed descriptions of the entire conflicts hence proved it contains synthesis. And above too the sources provided by you don't give insights of Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819.Based Kashmiri (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado Indeed Wikipedia is a collaborative project therefore we have to make sure that an article shouldn't exist in mainspace as long as it doesn't pass general notability, and contains synthesis, original research and POVFORK. And No one is being egoistic here. Why do you think so?Based Kashmiri (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:UCS. The "Maratha–Nizam wars" basically ends with the fall of the Marathas, as their conflicts lasted till then. The article body covers the contributions of the Nizam for the fall of the Marathas. Cheers. Imperial[AFCND] 07:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I literally showed how the sources provided by you (most of them don't even cover "Maratha-Nizam war" but cover some relations and hostilities). We just need a single source for the specific Maratha-Nizam war 1720-1819 and I'll pull off the prod with myself. Maratha–Nizam wars" basically ends with the fall of the Marathas, as their conflicts lasted till then. At least provide a source to back your statements, this is
WP:UCS doesn't give you waivers for extending the timeline on your own. We're still waiting for you to provide sources for your defined Maratha-Nizam war (1720-1819).Based Kashmiri (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Recommended: I'd suggest

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

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

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

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

Interior Design Masters series 5

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

Redirect to

original research. Dan arndt (talk) 07:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dominant CZ

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

Does not meet

WP:NORG criteria. The page was obviously written as self-promotion. After restructuring in 2021 and renaming to DOMINANT Genetika s.r.o., it has only 10-19 employees (according to the Business Register). The page is said to have been translated from cswiki, but it has already been deleted there as well. FromCzech (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete‎. While keep !votes have a narrow majority in a raw vote count, arguments in favor of deletion are much more solidly grounded in existing guidelines. In particular, while keep arguments asserted that notability has been established via coverage in RS, they have not provided examples of sources that cover the entire set of "Americans killed..." as required by

WP:LISTN. A late redirect proposal did not gain immediate traction; I decided against relisting to allow for its consideration on the basis that there is no current list of Americans at the suggested target page and thus the redirect seems unlikely to win consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 13:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Americans killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine

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

Mainly due to lack of notability,

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

Interesting topic.... would have never searched for it on my own. There seems to be substantial sourcing for this if it wants to be improved no? Moxy🍁 20:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are the only two sources I could find that treat the topic as a group: [65] (paywalled so can't review) and [66], and this latter source isn't very in depth about it. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been able to read the Washington Post link thanks to a gift I was sent: I don't believe the Washington Post is dealing with solely Americans having been killed in the war, but rather the idea and reasons behind Americans serving overseas in Ukraine - the Washington Post article is more suited for foreign fighters in the Russo-Ukrainian War rather than this list. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, I got a proposal to change the topic to "List of Americans killed in the Russo-Ukrainian War" , which @EkoGraf, the creator of the list, doesn't oppose to it, maybe we could change the topic first before we nominate to delete?
Sapiens dominabitur astris 14:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The title/period isn't the issue with the list. Also speedy keep cannot apply here. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, also article is incomplete and need expantion. If the title is changed to List of Americans killed in the Russo-Ukrainian War we should include American killed during the War in Donbas 2014-2021.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it pass notability and
    WP:RS with sources as The Guardian, Politico and Yahoo News. Shadow4dark (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    But do they deal with the topic as a group like this? Routine news coverage doesn't establish notability of the topic as a list. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Replace "Routine news" with better sources, it pass clearly notability. Shadow4dark (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What? Traumnovelle (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article creator, notability established as mentioned by RS, also agree to article expansion to include those from the Donbas War. EkoGraf (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Regarding lack of notability, NOTNEWS, and bias, I disagree with all three. I think it's pretty notable and informative for Americans and others to known how many died in a war they heavily funded. NOTNEWS I think is exempt in a list. To achieve completeness a list often must exhaust news coverage. And bias, I agree and disagree, but don't believe it's a problem. Making a list of Americans killed only shows coverage bias, similar to how there are so many pages and information about alleged Russian war crimes and negative stuff about Russia but very few covering the other side, Ukraine. That's mostly because most editors show more interest in writing about negative Russian things and because most sources that cover the alleged Ukrainian crimes are suppressed in Wikipedia. In such cases, I think the better solution is simply to also write about the other side, not remove the favored side. Thus, a list of other foreign nationals killed would also be important. Btw, doesn't such global list exist? If it does, then the American-only list should be merged in it and not stick out.
Regarding the alleged WP:OR, I haven't checked. If there are problems, then they should be solved, but I don't think deleting the page just because of it is ideal. I'm not following this thread, so ping me if you want a reply.
ping me] 21:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
There's the exact same routine coverage of non-American foreign civilians/soldiers killed in Ukraine during the current Russo-Ukraine war.
The only similar article I could find was list of deaths during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which includes people with Wikipedia articles, for the few that don't have one they appear to be important politicians or military officials. @Alexiscoutinho Traumnovelle (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
👍. Regarding the other list being of people with articles, I think it would be unfair to omit people without articles or military career (here). 🤔
ping me] 15:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I would say it's to have a US specific list about a war being fought in Eastern Europe by two European countries. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - The only arguments that would make this not
WP:NOTMEMORIAL territory. The basic problem I have with the list is that lists of victims for tragedies like wars and genocides are much too long to be made into articles consistently. We can't accept articles that are just millions and millions of names (as a "list of Jews killed during the holocaust) would be, and so we also shouldn't accept articles just because they're shorter. The only thing that makes American deaths notable in a way that Ukrainian deaths aren't is the fact that there is less of them? I think that's a repugnant conclusion to reach, and so the whole idea should be tossed in the trash. BrigadierG (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Vistamar School

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

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

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

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

Thanks for updating the article. However, there are not 3 articles that count towards GNG. There is the LA Times article I found and then you have two from the Daily Breeze. These count together - multiple articles from a single source count as one towards GNG. I think it is the Daily Breeze articles you meant to count, but just in case, I have looked at all the sources you added, and produced this analysis. I am, however, leaning keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - As per my comment above, We have two sources towards GNG. I consider "multiple" to mean three or more, to allow a thorough article to be written, but on the basis of the two, and particularly because one of them is in teh LA Times, I am leaning keep. Of course, an LA school is local for the LA Times - but the quality and reach of the source makes this a good candidate for notability. I also found other mentions in ProQuest, such as PR Newswire sources [68] but note the primary news reporting nature of many of these. Nevertheless, on the basis of the sources found to date, my feeling is that more are very likely to exist. Now that the article has been expanded a little, there is also a weak
    WP:HEY for keeping. I would like to see it expanded further, and I would like one more good source, but I don't see deletion as being a net positive in this case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Sirfurboy
Source
Independent?
 Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?
Accredditing Commission for Schools [69] Yes ~ Reliable but a primary source No Directory ✘ No
Vistamar School History [70] No No Primary source ~ 404 on link so cannot evaluate ✘ No
LA Times [71] Yes Yes The source is a major newspaper Yes The article focuses on the school founding as a concept ✔ Yes
Daily Breeze [72] AND Daily Breeze (second occurence - multiple articles from the same source count as one towards GNG) [73] Yes Local papers (see below) often publish press releases with little alteration, and as such the independence is questionable. In the first case the author is given as Shelly Leachman. [74] A communications officer since 2012, we are old She previously worked more than a decade as a journalist for news outlets across California, covering primarily education[75]. This piece has her byline, and as such it is unlikely it is just a press release. Indeed she seems to have interviewed students for this piece.
In the second case the author is credited as Ian Hanigan. Researching the author, I find Ian Hanigan serves as chief communications officer for the Orange County Department of Education, overseeing the Communications and Media Services unit.[76] However he was the Daily Breeze educational journalist until 2006 by the same source. This piece is dated 2005, so it appears he write the piece himself - it has his byline and this was his beat. 		Yes Daily Breeze is a local paper with 57,000 circulation, slogan "LAX to LA harbour". This is local coverage only, but still reliable and secondary. Yes With local sources, the question is whether there is sufficient information to write an article in the source. This criterion is often not well considered, but these articles appear to give the basis for some article. The problem with my analysis is that I don't have Proquest institutional access to these full records and they are not available in newspapers online, so I cannot fully assess whether these are in sufficient depth to meet this criterion. However we have two articles, three years apart, and looking at different aspects, so taken together, I am giving a cautious yes here. ✔ Yes
NCS directory [77] Yes ~ The source is reliable but this is a primary source No Directory only ✘ No
Niche [78] Yes I am not sure how Niche select schools for listing but will give it a pass on this as it fails on other measures ~ A directory is a type of primary source, and it is not clear how the information is collated. Some is clearly taken from the school's own materials, again primary No Directory listing, and substantial information is copied from the school and is not created by Niche. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

École des Navigateurs

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

Does not meet

WP:NORG. The first source is from the school's website, and the second is a trivial mention in a movie. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of significant tornadoes by calendar day

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

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

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

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Alan Roberts (sailor)

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

BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth. The event they are primary known for does not have an article. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  02:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I see a strong consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1997 Prairie Dell-Jarrell tornado

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

This tornado has an ample section at

2024 Sulphur tornado, which was overwhelming merged: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Sulphur tornado. United States Man (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Salem Al Shamsi

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

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

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

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Cerebra (charity)

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

The external links that are presumably used as references are not

reliable
, as they are either written by the organization or people connected with it, or barely have any information on it. Most of the sources that I can find also seem to be written by the organization or people connected with it.

Overall, there don't seem to be any independent sources with

significant coverage. Ships & Space(Edits) 02:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was no consensus‎. which does not preclude discussion of a merger into a broader group, such as the 1970s. The keep !votes aren't super solid, but no one but the nom is arguing for deletion Star Mississippi 12:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of TVB series (1977)

AfDs for this article:
List of TVB series (1977) (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 NLIST. Found no sources showing this subject (1977 TVB series) has been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources.  // Timothy :: talk  01:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the list can be kept for a navigational purpose, but at the current state it's way too short. Seeing the 1978 & 1979 lists aren't that long, is there a possibility of merging the three lists together to form something like List of TVB series (1970s)? S5A-0043Talk 05:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI vote no on this page of nomination with article of deletion and here is the link about TVB Series 1977 of mytvsuper: https://www.mytvsuper.com/en/programme/greatvendettathe0002_128332/THE-GREAT-VENDETTA/ https://www.mytvsuper.com/en/programme/ahouseisnotahome_103303/A-House-Is-Not-A-Home/. Basically, don't know why the certain person of Timothy are trying to report nomination as no reason https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_TVB_series_(1977)&diff=prev&oldid=1222806959 who claims that "Fails NLIST! Found no sources showing this subject (1977 TVB series) has been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources." If I were TimothyBlue, I wouldn't satisfied and including not participated with nomination in this AFD for report to touch. Without report nomination for this AfD and that shouldn't happen in first place. I totally agree with Cunard to keep on active at all time that's because it was very important about TVB history. Cool90630 (talk).
  • Note to closer: The above is nonsense. This is a list with one non-notable entry and no sources for NLIST. The above refs are just spam, none of them discuss the subject - 1977 - as a group, and how that the BEFORE for this list was correct.  // Timothy :: talk  16:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I restored the list entry of The Great Vendetta [zh] and added sources. The list now has two entries. I wrote above that the list can be expanded to 24 entries since there were 24 TVB dramas in 1977. I wrote above that a child list split by year from a long parent list does not need to itself meet the notability guideline when the parent list meets the notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I totally agree with more source about TVB Series 1977 article of the above is make more sense. "The above is nonsense shows this is keep rationale is flat out nonsense. It clearly does not have a navigation purpose" so it seems off-topic here that's how TB user didn't seem understand what the TVB Drama 1977 is about so then trying to report nomination with article of deletion. If TB did not satisfied without approved as fails NLIST policy found no sources showing this subject (1977 TVB series) has been discussed as a group by specific independent reliable sources then TB should have put the article of creation or ask Cunard talk page instead so that's way to understand for adding more reference sources on the TVB Series articles. I am not trying to inconsiderate here by the way. Cool90630 (talk) 02:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI think that the TVB series 1977 should kept as history and search TVBanywhere, Drama name episode by TVB or mytvsuper online details. (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, while of course, policy-based arguments are important, I'd like to see an assessment of new sources brought to this discussion. Additionally, I'll add that I don't see much support here or in the previous AFD for deletion. But keep any further comments focused on sources and policy and not on contributors or general statements about the subject matter. This is an AFD, not an article or user talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chandrikayilaliyunna Chandrakantham

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

Fails GNG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are routine mill news, listings, annoucements, promo, nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  01:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Parkmore Shopping Centre

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

I don't believe this meets

WP:ORG. Google news comes up with routine news like a robbery occurring but nothing indepth. 2 of the 4 sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Shallipopi#Career. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plutomania Records

Plutomania Records (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)

NCORP fail. Graywalls (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_May_15&oldid=1225300007"