Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 02 September 04 >

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. ✗plicit 05:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Kazan[edit]

Steven Kazan (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 was originally about Kazan's law firm, and then a 2012 AfD resulted in the article being moved and rescoped to be about Kazan. I cannot find any significant coverage of Kazan or his firm, searching Google, GBooks, GNews, Newspapers.com, TWL, and JSTOR. There are trivial mentions of him, quotes from him, and works by him, but nothing that significantly covers him as a person. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for a Soft Deletion as nominator states, it was part of a previous AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazan, McClain, Lyons, Greenwood & Harley PLC where the closure was to change the subject of this article to just Steven Kazan.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as described, appears to be a very run-of-the-mill successful lawyer. BD2412 T 18:34, 4 September 2022 (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 formed around the nominator's assertion the that sourcing failed to demonstrate notability Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EXFO[edit]

AfDs for this article:
EXFO (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)

Despite the large number of references, as far as I can tell none of them meet the WP:NCORP criteria for counting toward notability. Most of them are primary. Most of the ones that aren't aren't in-depth or independent. For example, Ref 4 is not independent because it's based almost entirely with an interview from one of the company's investors. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a publicly listed company, appearing on NASDAQ although recently re-privatised. Almost 2k employees, 25 countries. That said, respect to the stance of User:Pppery and the analysis there. Chumpih t 20:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:LISTED, the existence of suitable sources still needs to be demonstrated. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A quick before shows that they generate lots of press releases and routine coverage, but nobody seems to have written an in-depth article about them (much less the 3 generally preferred to establish notability) Rockphed (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree with nom, not much found that we can use for sourcing, beyond press release stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are in-depth article about them, meeting NCORP, already referenced in the article; here. Article needs improving! Nfitz (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the exact source I said was not independent content in the nomination statement. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with the nom, no significant secondary and independent sources, and being listed on the NASDAQ is not enough for notability. PopoDameron (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2022 (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. North America1000 23:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Treefort Media[edit]

Treefort Media (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)

Podcast company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - lacks in-depth coverage of the company itself (rather than individual podcasts). MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Needs some work, but I would think something out there exists given the notable podcasts it produces and the awards it's been nominated for. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Royal Autumn Crest. I think there is a difference between individual podcasts receiving awards, and the company itself receiving awards. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now because the notability of a company is not inherited from its products/merchandise/works. Rather, articles should instead be made about their works if they meet GNG. If coverage or awards are for the company itself, that would be a different story. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sign of this meeting WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. I can't find SIGCOV about the company itself, just mentions in connection with its podcasts and the notable people involved. As pointed out above, WP:Notability is not inherited. Storchy (talk) 09:18, 10 September 2022 (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! 02:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Ying[edit]

Charles Ying (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 zhwiki article is equally terribly sourced, and I searched both in English and Chinese and I can't find much in the way of significant coverage, it's largely passing mentions or unreliable fan cruft (you'll note, the EL sources that were originally used here, which were fan sites and a forum have been removed for obvious reasons.) I don't see how he passes WP:NACTOR despite the blue linked filmography, all the roles were minor and I don't see how he passes WP:NMUSIC since it doesn't appear his career took off beyond the record labels promotional period. PICKLEDICAE🥒 22:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources
    1. Hui, Bolun 許栢倫 (2016-07-13). "【專訪。影片】應昌佑婚後真男人：在娛樂圈生存比我想中難" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2022-08-28. Retrieved 2022-08-28.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Ying Changyou debuted in 2005 but did not see results. This year, he returned to the music scene with his new song "Come Here". After doing many interviews, Ying Changyou admitted that he was not used to it at first: ... When it comes to people who have to be thankful, apart from the old boss Dawn, he is Mother. Ying Changyou's mother is Ran Xiaoling, a popular singer in Taiwan in the 1970s. Her mother was successful, but her son was struggling in the entertainment industry. Ying Changyou did not feel pressured because of this."

    2. Go, Naren 鄉奈仁 (2019-03-06). "【入行10年都冇代表作】應昌佑有歌藝冇星運 為家庭不再追夢轉做打工仔". Apple Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-08-28. Retrieved 2022-08-28 – via Yahoo! News.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "I often hear that some people give up their careers to pursue their dreams! The 39-year-old Ying Changyou (Charles) is just the opposite. For the sake of his wife and children, he would rather give up his dream and return to the office as a working family from the singer on the platform. It's just four simple words - "steady and steady"! Charles' mother was Ran Xiaoling, who was popular in Taiwan in the 1970s and was known as the "Queen of Bass Songs". In 2004, Charles signed with A Music, led by Liming. Besides him, the other singer was Wei Lan. The two sang love songs, one male and one other. The female clapped on; unfortunately, only Wei Lan was the only one who successfully bounced; in 2014, facing the 10-year contract being full, and still not having a masterpiece, Charles decided that the strong man would break his arm!"

    3. Ling (2015-07-20). "歌手應昌佑 兼職搵奶粉錢 文章版權為新傳媒集團所擁有". Sunday Kiss (in Chinese). New Media Group [zh]. Archived from the original on 2022-08-28. Retrieved 2022-08-28.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Charles himself is good at graphic design. He graduated from the Rhode Island Design University in the United States. When he returned to Hong Kong, he worked as a designer at Nike. After the singer's contract expired, he often got his money back. After the design freelance, and the invitation of friends to open a company to engage in activities together, the income is more impressive than before."

    4. "《流行經典》帶挈開騷！應昌佑淡出樂壇？". Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2018-06-03. Archived from the original on 2022-08-28. Retrieved 2022-08-28.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "And Charles said that there is a new career development now, it is marketing, the company helps people do production, so he will take this job first, and he has a family and a family to do a good job, and he will no longer devote himself to singing."

    5. Go, Naren 鄉奈仁 (2019-03-08). "應昌佑娛圈路坎坷". Apple Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-08-28. Retrieved 2022-08-28.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Ying Changyou returned to Hong Kong from studying in the United States in 2004, and was immediately appreciated by the musician Lei Songde. He then joined Liming's A Music as a singer and caught up with Wei Lan. It's a pity that Ying Changyou had no representative works ten years after his debut, and was forced to give up his dream of becoming an office worker because of his family."

    6. Wang, Lianlian 王連連 (2005-08-05). "告別190磅肥仔Look 應昌佑瞓身報答黎明". Apple Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-08-28. Retrieved 2022-08-28.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Ying Changyou, a newcomer to the music scene supported by Liming, will release his debut album at the end of this month. Ying Changyou is very nervous and fully participates in the production work. Once a 190 pound overweight boy, he is determined to achieve good results with perseverance. ... Ying Changyou, who used to work for a big brand sneaker company, said that he was not used to the life of day and night when he first entered the industry, and he felt uncomfortable even being recognized by passers-by on the street, but after so many months, he began to get used to it."

    7. "〈娛樂乜乜乜〉還記得應昌佑嗎？" (in Chinese). NOW.com. 2016-05-24. Archived from the original on 2022-08-28. Retrieved 2022-08-28.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Recently, Changyou Ying entered the studio after 8 years, and continued his dream of being a singer. Eric Kwok helped him make songs. During the interview, he talked about his ups and downs and shouting. ... When it comes to Ying Changyou, it is natural to think of Dawn. Many people say that Li Sheng doesn't know how to run A Music, and his singers are exhausted one by one. I basically agree, but if anyone blames Li Sheng for not holding Ying Changyou, I will definitely oppose it to the end. Did the speaker actually experience the first few years of A Music? Back then, Li Sheng was crazy to support Ying Changyou. At that time, there was only one male singer in A Music, Ying Changyou. He didn't have many songs, but he also played non-stop on TV and radio. Li Sheng gave him a share of everything ..."

    8. "图文：应昌佑获新势力歌手奖 发表获奖感言" (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2007-08-04. Archived from the original on 2022-08-28. Retrieved 2022-08-28.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Ying Changyou won the New Power Singer Award and delivered his acceptance speech"

    9. "黎明林建岳成立东亚唱片公司 力捧应昌佑(图)" (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2004-07-29. Archived from the original on 2022-08-28. Retrieved 2022-08-28.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "In addition to holding a signing ceremony with Lin Jianyue on the spot, Leon also arranged for Ying Changyou, the first to support the newcomer, to meet with the media. ... Ying Changyou, the first popular newcomer, has had a song broadcast earlier. One of the songs "Do I Still Love You" in the movie "Big City and Small Matters" is his lead singer. Ying Changyou's background is not small. Her mother, Ran Xiaoling, is a popular singer of the generation."

    10. Hui, Bolun 許栢倫 (2016-07-13). "【專訪】真毒男應昌佑：我不紅因為很少說話" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2022-08-28. Retrieved 2022-08-28.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Most of his past works are related to bitter love, such as "Do I Still Love You", "How Can I Lose My Love", "It's My Bad", "Thank You for Lonely" and so on."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Charles Ying (traditional Chinese: 應昌佑; simplified Chinese: 应昌佑) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:27, 28 August 2022 (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, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Cunard. It's perfectly possible for an article subject to still pass GNG (and thus keep their article) even if they fail N-subtopic criteria. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Totally agree with both Cunard and Mellohi!, there is enough coverage in this article to support notability! As a native speaker, I can read the coverage. Gosh111131 (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2022 (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 23:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aprad[edit]

Aprad (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)

A completely unsourced article about a movie on which I can find almost no information. I have so far been unable to find any kind of actual reviews or coverage on the movie, though admittedly any existing coverage would likely not be in English. But even most movie and film database sites do not even list the film as one of Rajesh Hamal's roles, and without any kind of reliable sources, the article cannot remain. The best I could find were a few screenshots from the film. The article was WP:PRODed a couple years back, but the nominator later changed their mind and removed the PROD, making ineligible for soft deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Found no coverage in my own search. QuietHere (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2022 (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 Limonov (novel)#Film adaption. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Limonov, the Ballad of Eddie[edit]

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

No indication of importance. Consists of two sentences and one reference. Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk / contribs) 22:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No participants so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist was hit by an edit conflict, trying again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:15, 3 September 2022 (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 00:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Republican politicians who support same sex marriage[edit]

List of Republican politicians who support same sex marriage (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 sure if this is an encyclopedic cross-categorization explicitly verifiable with reliable sources. It implies that Republicans by default do not support same-sex marriage, which may well be true, but this title is inherently biased (failing WP:NPOV). Additionally, the list may be in a constant state of flux because personal viewpoints need not be permanent (unlike articles that explicitly detail who voted on what bill – that is established information and will not change). It also seems that votes on a bill are used as an inclusion criterion – again, this may be true, but has a hint of original research because there may be other factors influencing votes and may not be a fully representative sample. Complex/Rational 19:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep well-referenced, valid concept. Don't agree with nom that it's de-facto implied POV. Andre🚐 20:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The use of a vote a particular way on a particular bill as justification for inclusion in the list is complete WP:SYNTH. It's not possible to define "support" in any clear way here, especially that doesn't run afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The scope of this list is also fairly unclear -- it only seems to include House and Senate members rather than non-serving politicians, or those serving at other levels of government, making it even more of an unencyclopedic cross-categorization. There's also a pretty blatant failure of WP:LISTN here. Some of these sources might be usable to support prose concerning the overall shifting attitudes of congressional Republicans and American politicians in general. But trying to keep any sort of list like this is doomed to futility. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - At the moment, this list largely appears to be a fork of the Respect for Marriage Act, especially by citing votes on that bill as a proxy criterium for determining support. Its possible scope is so enormous it would almost better be treated as a category. In 10 years, will we really want an WP:indiscriminate of all the Republican politicians who support gay marriage? What about a list of those who oppose it (if we're being fair)? The former could grow to encompass thousands, and the latter already probably would if it were created. This topic, such as it could be covered, would be better served by a prose article of the likes of "Same-sex marriage and the Republican Party in the United States" or "Same-sex marriage and politics in the United States". -Indy beetle (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Indy beetle and IP 35.xx; voting lists aren't encyclopedic. And some Republicans will have more complex views than simply "support" or "oppose". Ovinus (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2022 (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 14:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Çetin Balanuye[edit]

Çetin Balanuye (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. I examined all of the Turkish sources. Bahcesehir, Akdeniz, and balanuye net sources are not independent. Remained news sources do not provide significant information about the person. Kadı Message 19:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kadı. Thanks for the warnings. I think there are several statements in the page that needs to be omitted. (Some unnecessary info about the academic background and some unncessarily long descriptions about one of the books, tenets etc. What else? Otherwise references seem valid to me. I would appreciate it if you could suggest something further to improve. Best regards. Ortak.Conatus (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As regards the sources you noticed: "Bahcesehir" comes from Turkish newspapers; "Akdeniz" is a state university and biographic info comes from the official WEB site of the university. For "Balanuye.net", yes you are right, it is not independent and needs to be erased. Would you aggree? Ortak.Conatus (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you aggree for the corrections of these kind please let me know so that I can work on it. Ortak.Conatus (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that in its current state, the article has some problems regarding the NOPV and NOR policies. Yet, I think the subject of the article (i.e. the person in question) meets the notability criteria. Hence, rather than deleting it, I suggest modifying the article to make it compatible with NPOV and NOR policies. I think it should be radically shortened and cleaned up, freeing it from non-significant information. The new version should also be written using more neutral language. If it is OK, I am working on a draft and will submit it for discussion here. 78.190.240.85 (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — The discussion on trwiki has gained more traction that this one, where it's likely going to be deleted. I don't see any significant coverage from reliable and independent sources in the article, thus failing GNG. All of the independent sources are just mentions or interviews. The two comments above don't even have a policy-based explanation as to how this clears notability. Since the subject itself isn't notable, I don't see how a rewrite/trim will change anything. ~StyyxTalk? 20:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. It lacks in-depth coverage. In this case, rewriting does not help it to pass notability criterias. --Assyrtiko (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. The subject of the article (Çetin Balanuye) seems worthy of being an entry. His name is also in the references under the Spinoza article in En-Wiki. All of his books in the field of Spinoza have been reprinted in large numbers in Turkey. I think that the mistakes in the first article about the name should be eliminated and a short article should be preserved with better resources. Ortak.Conatus (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please check Çetin Balanuye for his contribution to Spinoza scholarship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_about_Baruch_Spinoza Ortak.Conatus (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are no "better sources". The article creator adding a link to here from List of works about Baruch Spinoza is irrelevant. You keep saying that the subject is notable, but are yet to make an argument as to how. ~StyyxTalk? 12:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of his books (Spinoza'nın Sevinci Nereden Geliyor?) hits 10th edition in 5 years. The other book (Spinoza) has made 4 editions. Don't you think that if original books on Spinoza in Turkish have found as large readership as these books indicate some sort of notability? Ortak.Conatus (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To my best knowledge, there are no books in the field of philosophy in Turkish compared to this much large readership if they are not translations and-or commentaries. Perhaps someone can edit the entry in a more appropriate way in tune with Wiki policies? Why should we not give a chance? Ortak.Conatus (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of editing the article, fixing various WP:NPOV and WP:NOR issues. I also removed non-significant information that does little to improve the article. Please consider the revised version for further discussions.
As for the Notability issue, I agree that the subject should qualify as he is a very distinguished and arguably the most widely read original Spinoza scholar in Turkish. I remember various reviews about his book Spinoza's Joy commenting on its effects on the area. Should I try to find and add them as references? Would it be enough to clear the notability criteria? 78.190.240.85 (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice edition. It is compact, clear, and objective. Congratulations. I can also provide some resources confirming the positive impact and reception of the book entitled Spinoza's Joy? In any case, the entry looks acceptable in terms of Wiki rules and regulations. Ortak.Conatus (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have just read the current version of Cetin Balanuye entry. I think the candidate is one of the most read academics/philosophers in Turkey and he is worthy of being an entry. The edited version of the entry seems appropriate both for Wikipedia policies and in terms of the information and references it contains. I also think the article should be kept in its current form. flaneur (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, one sock wasn't enough and you had to create another one? ~StyyxTalk? 06:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I have added info and source about the editorial position of Cetin Balanuye: "Çetin Balanuye has been the editor-in-chief of the academic peer-reviewed journal "Ethos: Dialogues in Philosophy and Social Sciences" [ISSN 1309-1328] since 2008." Ortak.Conatus (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PROF and specifically the 8th criteria reads as: "The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." May this new information help us settling with the notability issue?
Ortak.Conatus (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that a journal without secondary coverage about ut can be considered "major" or "well-established".
  • I think this is the point where I start to ask some questions, Ortak.Conatus.
  • The contributions of you, the IP address above, and Bohemiannnn (talk · contribs) on the English and Turkish Wikipedia are solely about the creation of Çetin Balanuye and the subsequent edits to deletion discussions on the respective projects, with both accounts being created around the same time, less than a month ago. This begs the obvious question: is there any conflict of interest or paid editing here?
  • Are you the same person as the aforementioned IP and account or are guys a few friends who want this article kept? Or is this just a pure coincidence that an IP and two brand-new accounts participate in the same AfD and that AfD only? Though, let me tell you in advance, if you pick the third option, no one is going to believe you.
  • This twitter account that shares the same name as one of the Wikipedia accounts has retweeted Balanuye a few times. Any connection to Conatus Academy or is that also pure coincidence?
Note that the article was deleted on the Turkish Wikipedia, which shares a very similar NPROF criteria with enwiki, per a deletion discussion. ~StyyxTalk? 13:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sory, this is just nonsense! I have only one account (Ortak.Conatus) and have no idea about the other accounts you are talking about. You look too busy policing about the editors and their motivation behind keeping an entry for an author. Why not people are just devoted readers? Why don't you focus on the content? All denoted issues have been resolved one by one, but you still keep your bias. Now, perhaps it is time for you to answer: What makes you this much prejudiced of the subject? The fact that I am a new editor has nothing to do with the value of the comments, corrections and contributions I have been making for the given article. Please, try focusing on the content and stop being judgemental. Ortak.Conatus (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And, now you say you doubt that the given Journal lacks the value of being well-established. Just read the journal's page. It has been published since 2008, been indexed by international indexes for years. Tons of scholars keep publishing with the journal. What else should one find to convince you that perpaps the content tells something true? Perhaps I am not a terrible person trying cheat you ? Would this be also possible? Ortak.Conatus (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know the questions are for your own sake right? If you do the things I described above, you have to disclose it. If you don't, and others figure out that you've been doing it, you're going to get blocked per the policy. It is normal for any editor to question your behaviour—creating an account just to participate in a discussion—because it's just suspicious. The fact that there is another account doing the same just adds up to it.
I have "focused on the content" in my first two messages, where I argue that the subject isn't notable, because I actually believe that the subject is non-notable. There is no prejudice in that. ~StyyxTalk? 14:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right indeed. Since I am a new editor I also took your comments very seriously, learned from them. And I started reading through Wiki procedures. I understood your original objections, and that's why I tried to improve the content. If this is a sort of conflict-of-interest, I am a very devoted reader of Balanuye. In order not to be kept by subjective passion I researched the author. He is notable in many respects: He is one of the first original writer who made the name "Spinoza" accesible to millions in Turkey. Just read the comments, journals, citations about Spinoza's Joy. I thought this entry would be very valuable for other researchers trying to figure out their ways in philosophy. That's it. That simple. Otherwise I have no motivation to keep this discussion long. I only mean that I am here, in fact, as I have been taking your original objections very seriously. However, the article in the current form is completely free from any harm and perhaps valuable as an entry. Ortak.Conatus (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And, besides everything I should thank you for helping Wiki community improve the content and make it more reasonable and humbler. I am very positive about this. Ortak.Conatus (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after major clean-up after AFD nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete appears to be a minor player in his field of study. I don't see much for sourcing. COI and socking pretty much tells me he's not notable as those only tend to pop up when a deletion is close at hand. Otherwise, I see no substantial sources we can use to keep the article here. Oaktree b (talk) 03:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of independent and reliable sources, and the fact that the discussion over at trwiki was closed as delete as well. 0xDeadbeef 05:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to My Life as a Teenage Robot. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of My Life as a Teenage Robot characters[edit]

List of My Life as a Teenage Robot characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NLIST or WP:LSC. The list has a history of WP:FANCRUFT information and is still currently having trouble even citing a single source, let alone a reliable one. Sparkltalk 18:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If this is what would be chosen, it shouldn't be merged as-is without sources, passing the buck along to the main article. There's no excuse to maintain a no-sourced status quo. Nate • (chatter) 17:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not much of an expert on WP:MOSTV, but according to WP:TVCAST, it seems that citations isn't a big concern regarding a cast of characters in the main article of a TV series. We still do have to trim out a lot of insignificant characters of course. Sparkltalk 17:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: The primary source is clear, that's the series itself. Primary sources are fine to verify their own content, which is also specifically called out at WP:Primary sources, point 3. So as long as there is no specific reason to assume that we have an interpretation here rather than plot summary, this does not violate WP:V. Daranios (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Without footnotes or such, how can we be sure there are no hoaxes or errors in this content? I'd accept a confirmation from someone familiar with the source material who can say this is correct. Otherwise, I stand by my vote of caution. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Based on this argument one could justify deleting all content lacking in-line citations on Wikipedia. This is not supported by WP:V nor any other policy I am aware of. Rather, we are encouraged by the guidelines to assume in good faith that the author writing our summaries here is just such a person "familiar with the source material" who would tell us "this is correct" - unless there is indication that there are hoaxes or errors, of course. If you would like to be sure, there is an easy if, err, time-consuming way: Just get back to the primary source and watch the show. Daranios (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios My reading of WP:V is different. Any content can be challenged, and once challenged, it should not be restored without citations. That's call meeting the (modern, if always written down) standards. It is the responsibility of the creator, or fans, or other interested editor to provide the sources, or, errr, watch the show, now that attention has been drawn to the article not meeting said standards. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: What's the reason to doubt the verifiablity here? Challenging content without having a good reason would be arbitrary and then amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Daranios (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is just false, IMHO. You ignore WP:ALLPLOT, WP:FANCRUFT, and WP:TNT. WP:AGF isn't the most relevant here, since this clearly violates these guidelines (or essays) I linked. By the way, I know I linked some essays, but your linking of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an essay. I'm just confused that why merge an WP:ALLPLOT version? Many thanks again! VickKiang (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang: Here I was just replying to the "any merge would violate WP:V" opinion. I had not ignored the guidelines/essays you have linked, and based on that my !vote was and is not "keep", but rather "selective merge" to My Life as a Teenage Robot, which has lots of non-plot information to counterbalance plot information. WP:TNT would mean that none of what we have here is of any use. But like StarTrekker and others, I believe a limited amount of character description on the main characters from here would benefit the main article. Daranios (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios In addition to what is said above, there is also WP:OR to consider. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Proper plot summary of primary sources is not original research. Daranios (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Key word here: proper. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect Even if this article meets WP:V (I'm sure there's definitely some WP:OR), the article is WP:ALLPLOT, WP:FANCRUFT, and meets WP:TNT, and seems to be a list that fails WP:NLIST, or an article that doesn't meet WP:GNG. There's simply nothing to save here, sadly. VickKiang (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep. The arguments above that unsourced statements are unsourceable and hence fail V is nonsensical when everything is sourceable to the primary material: Primary meets V for uncontroversial statements like which characters exist in a setting. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective Merge to My Life as a Teenage Robot - Mainly, just the "Main" character section from this list. Its reasonable to expect information on the main cast to be included on an article on a notable television program, and the sources that are already present at the My Life as a Teenage Robot article already verify that they are, in fact, the main characters and are voiced by the indicated VAs. I agree with many of the Delete votes that this current list is overly excessive in listing every minor character with overly detailed plot summaries, but I do think that its reasonable for the information on the main characters to be merged over. Rorshacma (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with the main page in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I see proponents for all possibilities. Looks like the majority of editors would prefer Merging this article with the main article but I'm relisting just in case.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 3 September 2022 (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. North America1000 23:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle (slang)[edit]

Kyle (slang) (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 based primary on one source as a "male" alternative to the widespread Karen (slang) article. It certainly doesn't have the cultural leverage or universality of coverage. I'm struggling to see WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as it seems that when searched, sources are not unanimous on what the male version of a Karen should be called (borderline WP:HAMMER). There's also an element of inherited notability here as the term has not become widespread or received coverage in its own rights aside from as a flip/variation of the wider slang/meme/language of the "Karen". >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:08, 3 September 2022 (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. North America1000 23:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

François Zajdela[edit]

AfDs for this article:
François Zajdela (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 nearly notable enough to have his own Wikipedia page, simply the fact that he is mentioned in some biographical dictionaries and had a student with an article on French Wikipedia doesn't make him notable. I can't find his death announced in any newspapers, which is not what you would expect for someone notable. DieOuTransvaal (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oasis Animation[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Oasis Animation (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)

Have some credible work but it is not passing WP:NCORP MickeyMouse143 (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Notable animation studio, notable through their work as there is no other way that an animation studio can be notable other than through their work. If we were to insist on WP:SIGCOV then we'd only have articles on animation studios where someone got murdered, or some other scandal happened that made them appear in the news.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — WP:NCORP is the strictiest SNG out there: no WP:42 = no notability. A company cannot be notable based on its work, that's just, no. ~StyyxTalk? 16:47, 1 September 2022 (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, 3 September 2022 (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 10:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valdur (band)[edit]

Valdur (band) (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:NMUSIC. Article has been tagged for notability since January 2010. I could not find any independent reliable sources for this band, and a previous prod was removed because someone suggested that reliability of the album reviews should be determined at AfD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:48, 27 August 2022 (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, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pinging @Malcolmxl5: (the prodder) and @Geschichte: (the deprodder) for input GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sometimes I see a poorly sourced, poorly written article that I can clean up and improve but this one I could do nothing with because I couldn't find any, and I still can't find any, in-depth high-quality sources about the band with which to write an article. Fails WP:NMUSIC, fails WP:GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2022 (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! 23:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Siddham: The Asia Inscriptions Database[edit]

Siddham: The Asia Inscriptions Database (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 database doesn't seem to be the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Boundaries: Religion, Region, Language and the State. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Mentioned in academic papers e.g. [1], has a paper about it here:[2] (British Library publication that largely describes the database as opposed to a research paper, but it is still a publication from the British Library about it) and is discussed in published books such as [3] (Inscriptions of the Aulikaras and Their Associates - Daniel Balogh.) It is ERC funded, with British Library match funding. This is WP:N. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was intrigued to hear that you'd found a paper about it, Sirfurboy, but the link you give appears to be to the BL library catalogue entry for the database, not a paper. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I will strike through in a moment. The related URL is not in fact British Library, it is British museum and the page has gone, but referred to the database here[4]. However that was a web page and not a paper. But that is not why this is notable. It is notable because it finds its way into books and publications. E.g. [5], [6], [7], as well as the ones already mentioned. You say "This database doesn't seem to be the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." But considering the database is relatively new, and the subject is academic, it actually has good coverage in a range of secondary sources. Certainly enough to establish notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:47, 27 August 2022 (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, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It isn't possible to write an even borderline article about this based on independent secondary sources, and as such we shouldn't have one. I can't give much weight to the mentions above; it's a database, items in it will be cited fairly frequently. Indeed, if we can only find five instances of it being cited, that's an indicator of lack of notability. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was thinking myself that what Sirfurboy has found are citations rather than coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I reviewed the above sources and common databases and am not seeing coverage about the database itself, nevertheless significant coverage. I would support a redirect to a list of similar databases, since this tends to be mentioned among other inscriptions databases/software, but we have no such list right now. czar 19:03, 10 September 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M. V. Seetharamiah[edit]

M. V. Seetharamiah (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)

Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years and never been updated. No secondary sourcing. Single obit is only ref. Couldn't located 2nd obit. No other coverage. Fr and ta wp's have exact same referencing. Fail WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 16:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Curbon7: How are you? Editor User:Ktin is updating the article. scope_creepTalk 08:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much. My edits are done. Life well lived. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after recent improvemenets to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nomination Withdrawn Hi @Liz: I think the article has completed the WP:HEYMANN standard now with many decent references. It can be closed. scope_creepTalk 09:05, 4 September 2022 (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. North America1000 00:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ayanda Ngila[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ayanda Ngila (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)

Different enough that it's not a G4. May version (admin only) was actually more comprehensive, but this new stub doesn't overcome sourcing issues raised at the AfD. Star Mississippi 15:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping prior participants: @Ari T. Benchaim, Xclusivzik, PaulPachad, Red Bird 1973, Reading Beans, and Park3r: Star Mississippi 15:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what was the issue with the previous version. I can't access it. Frombelow (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are over 15 independent newspaper articles on his role as a member of the movement, on his high profile arrest and on his assassination. It was all over national news. I still don't understand what the issue is with this article. Not sure what G4 or AfD mean so please explain. Frombelow (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
just to underline once again, Ngila is a notable leader of this movement of 50,000+ members. His arrest was a high-profile one. His assassination was all over the national news in South Africa - both in terms of news reporting as well as many op-eds as well. It should not be deleted. If there are changes that need to be made to make, please make those suggestions. Frombelow (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Frombelow G4 means that while this article was already discussed and the consensus was to delete it (i.e. Ngila is not notable as defined by Wikipedia standards), the current article is different enough that it won't be automatically deleted, nut rather listed here for discussion to see if consensus has changed. You're welcome and encouraged to continue editing the article as you have done. Other editors will join the discussion and an uninvolved editor will close the discussion when they believe there is consensus. It may be seven days, or it could be longer. Star Mississippi 01:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
gotcha. That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Frombelow (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to Murder of Ayanda Ngila. This organisation has enormous amounts of WP:UNDUE coverage on Wikipedia. Also, many of the sources fail to meet the criteria for WP:RS. It might be best to delete this article, and create Murder of Ayanda Ngila as a redirect to Abahlali baseMjondolo#Repression where the murder can be described in a few sentences, supported by WP:RS Park3r (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have some bias against covering this. Just claiming the organisation has undue coverage on Wikipedia does not make it fact. In the past 3 days, the organisation has been in virtually every single newspaper in the country and on all the national TV news as well (SABC, eTV, Newzroom Africa, etc). It is also the largest social movement in the country. The sources in this article absolutely meet the WP:RS criteria. The sources are all respected mainstream media outlets. Instead of referring to web pages, please be constructive and if there is a specific source that doesn't meet the criteria please cite that specific source.
    I think that Ayanda Ngila needs its own page. He was a notable member of the largest social movement in the country. His arrest was also notable, not just his murder. So I think the page should either say as Ayanda Ngila or alternatively it could be moved to Arrest and Murder of Ayanda Ngila. Frombelow (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to solicit more feedback from editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At what point can't the nomination for deletion be removed?
The page has been improved significantly and its relevance has increased due to current events including the assassination of two state witnesses of Ngila's murder. People need to have a logical fact-based argument as to why it should be deleted otherwise they should withdraw their nomination. Frombelow (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A closer will judge consensus when the time is right. The nomination will not be removed until then. Star Mississippi 21:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But when will time be right? Is there no guideline for how long it must take? Frombelow (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond the general minimum of seven days, there is not because there is no deadline. Star Mississippi 15:09, 8 September 2022 (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. Also deleting because of copyright violations that still exist in the article. No harm in creating a redirect after this version of the article is deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Françoise Girard (feminist)[edit]

Françoise Girard (feminist) (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)

Promotional and dishonest BLP. Mostly copied from official biographies (eg [11](pdf) and bombarded with random sources that mention her name but do not varify the content they follow. Currently contains no independent coverage about her. Poorly sourced promotional BLPs do not belong on Wikipedia. Get rid of it and let someone honest start over. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep but almost appears we need to TNT it. Article about the kerfuffle she was involved with from the Guardian [12] and is the discussed in a paragraph here in the NY Times magazine section. [13]. Interviews aren't really GNG, but she's here in a French article [14] and she's quoted here but also talked about in an article on abortion in Ireland [15]. She seems to be a go-to expert in Canadian French-language media when they talk about Roe V. Wade being repealed, but not really usable for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT/WP:PROMO and insufficient support for WP:BASIC notability. The 2020 "kerfluffle" article noted above, Women's health organisation president resigns following bullying and racism investigation (Guardian) is not particularly in-depth coverage of her career but it is the most substantial coverage I have found so far. She is quoted in the 2016 NYT Magazine article noted above, quoting herself speaking to someone who denies recalling the conversation. The 2018 report on the Ireland referendum in La Presse that includes quotes from Girard does not seem to provide much secondary context beyond (google translated) "At the head of an alliance headquartered in New York and bringing together 80 organizations from 40 countries in the developing world, Françoise Girard ardently defends access to abortion and reproductive rights in major international forums, including the United Nations." The 2020 50-50 Magazine interview introduces her as (google translated) "President of the International Women's Health Coalition (IWHC). Her organization is one of the six members of the Core Group, which is the supreme decision-making body of the Generation Equality Forum. It is co-chaired by representatives of UN Women, France and Mexico, as well as two representatives of civil society, including the IWHC."). After deletion, a redirect can be created to International Women's Health Coalition, where she is mentioned and information about her resignation (that is not included in this article) could be added. Beccaynr (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to International Women's Health Coalition as WP:ATD. There is a bit of coverage, but not enough to meet WP:GNG. Passing mentions aren't enough, neither are refs for the sake of WP:PROMO. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Kj cheetham, as an fyi, this article was created and primarily developed by a suspected and indefinitely blocked sock of Bennet 43, so this further appears to support WP:TNT deletion before a redirect is created, e.g. "undisclosed paid sock farms are frequently blown up", in addition to the careful review of this article by the nom as well as research during this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objections to use of WP:TNT before a redirect is created in this case, as opposed to just WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Article would be eligible for CSD G5; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bennet43. Regardless, it is irrevocably promotional and would need to be started over from scratch. Jack Frost (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This thing needs to be WP:TNTed and the notability is on the borderline. If an experienced editor wants to create a new article on the subject in the draftspace and then submit it through AfC I would not be opposed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above, needs to be scrapped. Seacactus 13 (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2022 (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 Laddingford. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laddingford Aerodrome[edit]

Laddingford Aerodrome (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. Private airports don't get a presumption of notability, either. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Smith (royal servant)[edit]

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

For me, the article could be encyclopedic IF what makes it noteworthy were not subject to a legal injunction. As it stands, with the accuser dead, the accused alive and the prosecution dropped the article is not only not encyclopedic and lacking the necessary number of sources for such a story, but attempts to expand and improve it would likely be defamatory. This is why I think it might be better to delete it. Sira Aspera (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No other participants yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:59, 3 September 2022 (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! 03:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Curtiss KDC[edit]

Curtiss KDC (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)

Clear GNG fail. Found nothing from a basic BEFORE search besides Wikipedia mirrors. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2022 (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. RL0919 (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Wilson (boxer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete couldn't find anything to satisfy GNG. – 2.O.Boxing 22:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. No assertion of notability. Lethweimaster (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2022 (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. A WP:SNOW close. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death and state funeral of George H. W. Bush[edit]

Death and state funeral of George H. W. Bush (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 information covered in this article is not notable, because nothing historically or culturally significant happened at the funeral itself (unlike say at Death and state funeral of Joseph Stalin). The info in here can just be in the death section of George H.W. Bush. The vast majority of articles about the death and state funerals of politicians cover events which were not inherently notable, with the only notability being secondary because the subject was notable - unlike the Josef Stalin one - in which many victims of his cult of personality died in a human crush at his funeral. Additionally, most death and state funeral articles are about Western politicians. I don't think we should have and keep adding articles about the deaths + state funerals of Western politicians when nothing significant happened because of these events, considering we usually don't do that for non-Western politicians. A lot of other non-Western politicians also leave a notable metaphysical impact on the world through the policies they implement, and since their time in office usually defines why they're notable - not the aftermath of their death - the same principle should apply to Western politicians. Important info about his death and funeral is already covered in George H. W. Bush#Death and funeral, so including it here again is repetitive, and the rest is just excess which isn’t notable. So it should just be deleted, there's nothing of substance here which isn’t in the original article, therefore merging isn’t necessary Stephanie921 (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that there's nothing of substance here which isn’t in the original article is utter nonsense. Even in the lead I found two points of substance:
  1. President Donald Trump declared a national day of mourning and ordered all flags "throughout the United States and its Territories and possessions" lowered to half staff for 30 days after his death
  2. About a dozen world leaders attended the event
I started on the next para, but there was so much detail on his final days that isn't in the main article that it was too much work to copy it all.
It seems that the nominator did not even read the article before making this nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is that the subject is not by itself notable. The notability all comes from Bush himself, not the acc death and funeral. The article about Bush already covers it concisely as it pertains to him, and the media coverage all stem from his legacy @User:331dot Stephanie921 (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article has existed for four years without a problem. It covers much more detailed information than the one paragraph in the article about Bush himself. Adding this all to that article would make it too long. "The media coverage all stem from his legacy", yes, that happens with heads of state. If he were a nobody, his funeral would likely not warrant an article. 331dot (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Highly notable event, with extensive WP:SIGCOV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. State funerals of world leaders are generally notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mountains of coverage here, not just from the U.S. either. Too much to cram into the main article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, suggest SNOW close – With extensive international coverage, easily passes WP:NEVENT. Ovinus (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related discussion: WP:Articles for deletion/Death of Mikhail Gorbachev. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Andre🚐 18:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This AfD nomination was likely not started because of the merits of Death and state funeral of George H. W. Bush itself, but rather because the page was mentioned by !voters at the deletion nomination of Death and funeral of Mikhail Gorbachev as an example of precedent for such articles existing on the encyclopedia, while the nom's stated opinion is that "Death and funeral of <x>" articles are inherently non notable. Notability is determined by sources, and this article's sourcing demonstrates that this event was extensively covered. The topic is also significant enough that it passed an ITN/C discussion and was featured on the front page of the encyclopedia for a time. There's more than enough information here to justify a page separate from the biographical article George H. W. Bush. In my opinion, it's not a great practice to start new AfD discussions just to make a point at another AfD discussion. Maybe if the Gorbachev one closed with a consensus to delete (which looks very unlikely) then there'd be a better case for nominating other ones, but right now this feels a bit POINTy.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh, this isn't super disruptive and it's a reasonable question, although it might have been be better discussed at some place like Wikipedia talk:Notability (events). I'd suggest a snow close, though. Ovinus (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article includes details that would not be included in the main article due to it being too long, so I see no reason for the page to be deleted. Sahaib (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would have WP:SNOW closed this myself, but to some extent am involved given my contribution at WP:Articles for deletion/Death of Mikhail Gorbachev. FWIW, this article clearly passes the GNG and is an utterly appropriate fork. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - obviously, if only because this is a completely valid content fork so as to avoid overwhelming the parent article with undue coverage of his death and funeral. Silly nom imo. nableezy - 00:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Shane[edit]

Nicky Shane (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)

Promotional piece. Having registered a Guinness World Record is not a claim to notability, and there is no trace of notability per WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Looks like this has flown under the radar for many years. bonadea contributions talk 21:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vadda Grewal[edit]

Vadda Grewal (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 singer/actor. At best they're notable for being busted for opium; any source that isn't about that is a name-drop in a cast list (strings: "vada grewal", "vadda grewal"). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:59, 3 September 2022 (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. RL0919 (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meisuna Alhassan[edit]

Meisuna Alhassan (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 semi-pro footballer that would have failed WP:NFOOTBALL if still relevant. None of the sources cited demonstrate significant coverage so I'm not seeing how WP:GNG is met. No hits in Google News and no relevant hits in ProQuest. The coverage in DDG is mostly Wikipedia mirrors and other unreliable sources. Digging deeper, you can find a trivial mention in a few places like Modern Ghana but this is far from an acceptable level of depth for an article. Doesn't even pass the bare minimum requirement at WP:SPORTBASIC bullet point 5. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:05, 3 September 2022 (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. The discussion indicates a lack of secondary sources that provide significant, independent coverage of the institution itself. Primary sources and tangential material about accomplishments of people associated with it, etc., do not provide the type of coverage needed. RL0919 (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarva Vidhyalaya Kelavani Mandal[edit]

Sarva Vidhyalaya Kelavani Mandal (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:NORG, sources are either primary or bare mentions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi i checked and added Constituent Colleges. seems genuine to me. AniEssential (talk) 06:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AniEssential thank you Saggi Josh (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AniEssential, i'd suggest that you read Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824 Keep Sarva Vidyalaya Kelavani Mandal is philanthropic educational trust with over 100 years legacy.[1] Thank you AniEssential (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824 Hello, you may check the link of scholar.google.com [2] Saggi Josh (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a search link with a lot of results. I checked a few and they too seem to be bare mentions. The first result there might be promising. Please add it to the article as a ref with the numbers of relevant pages, and a direct url, so that readers don't have to go looking through 10 pdfs. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824 Hello, I have added list of schools and colleges and 2 colleges LDRP and SVIM have Wikipedia pages as well. As per your guidance I have added couple of books, journal as well. please have a look and guide. thank you Saggi Josh (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Saggi Josh, please see WP:NOTINHERITED. Also, after you are done with improving the article, add your vote (with reasoning) to this discussion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added various Journals, Book, Scholar articles and added constituent colleges and school. Sarva Vidhyalaya Kelavani Mandal is the parent trust under which Kadi Sarva Vishwavidyalaya university is registered, various Schools are also under Sarva Vidhyalaya Kelavani Mandal umbrella. LDRP Institute of Technology and Research and SVIM colleges have their Wikipedia pages and are under Sarva Vidhyalaya Kelavani Mandal education parent trust. Kindly check that as well. Having said these I shall continue to improve article. Kindly consider to keep article. Saggi Josh (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relising, please review after addition of new sources and content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep @Liz Greetings! I have added new link of the ISBN:9789381110669 [4] Saggi Josh (talk) 07:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
please do not vote 2 times. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to this, the subject of the article seems to be the publisher of this book. Therefore, not an independent source. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Sarva Vidyalaya Kelavani Mandal is Since 1919". Retrieved 15 August 2022.
  2. ^ ""Sarva Vidyalaya Kelavani Mandal"Google Scholar". Retrieved 13 August 2022.
  3. ^ "Google Scholar Articles". Retrieved 15 August 2022.
  4. ^ Paṭela, Mohanalāla (2015). Chhaganbha: A Pole Star of Wisdom. Translated by Shah, Nila. Sarva Vidyalaya Kelavani Mandal. p. 151. ISBN 9789381110669.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein Added notable work done by Sarva Vidhyalaya Kelvani Mandal of proving 2000 beds during Covid-19 lockdown to the Government of Gujarat. link [1] Saggi Josh (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final attempt to gain more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrarily0 I have added one more news article about Sarva Vidhyalaya Kelavani Mandal CSR activity in association with Life Chiropractic College West to benefit 4000 patients in June 2022 and upcoming announcement to treat more patients in coming month. [2] Saggi Josh (talk) 05:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Arbitrarily0 added 1 more JSTOR [3] Saggi Josh (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Arbitrarily0 I have added Journal [4] Saggi Josh (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Arbitrarily0 added one more journal [5] Saggi Josh (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Arbitrarily0 Kindly check the Google scholar link where all the scholars and Sarva Vidhyalaya Kelavani Mandal is listed[6] Saggi Josh (talk) 07:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Arbitrarily0 A survey on IoT privacy issues and mitigation techniques [7] Saggi Josh (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Arbitrarily0 Hello i have /* In the news */ added student of Sarva Vidhyalaya Kelavani Mandal Pranav Desai para Olympian Gold Medalist [8] Saggi Josh (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Saggi Josh I wouldn't recommend pinging the relisting admin for every ref that you add to the article. I've looked at some of your new refs: they still seem not have in-depth coverage. e.g. "Student X, of a college, run by the mandal, wins a medal" does not confer notability on the Trust itself. A few more were of the same kind. Please don't WP:REFBOMB. Instead, you should present the best WP:THREE refs that show notability for the mandal. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello@MPGuy2824.. Greetings. My apologies and thank you for guidance. As per my understanding, I have placed notable achievement as Mandal takes pride in the student who could fetch Gold medal in para Olympics and Student receive all the facilities needed to reach there, was provided by Sarva Vidhyalaya Kelavani Mandal. Moreover, as per your earlier suggestions I have added google scholar link for everyone's ready reference for the notability. [9] Saggi Josh (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "LOCKDOWN / હવે જીવનજરૂરી સામાન માટે પણ નહીં નીકળવું પડે બહાર, આ રહ્યા હેલ્પલાઈન નંબર". VTV-Gujarati (in Gujarati). March 25, 2020. Retrieved September 2, 2022.
  2. ^ "સારવાર કેમ્પનું આયોજન:ગાંધીનગર ફિઝિયોથેરાપી કોલેજ ખાતે કાયરો પ્રેક્ટિશનર્સ દ્વારા ત્રી દિવસીય નિઃશુલ્ક સારવાર કેમ્પનું આયોજન". Divya Bhaskar (in Gujarati). September 6, 2020. Retrieved September 7, 2022.
  3. ^ Modhpatel, A K (November 30, 2014). "A case study of Sarva Vidyalaya Kelavani Mandal kadi in developmental perspective". Shodhganga : a reservoir of Indian theses @ INFLIBNET – via JSTOR.
  4. ^ Patel, Urjita; Chaudhari, B.K. Dr. (October 10, 2017). "Information Seeking Behavior of the Engineering College Students, Gandhinagar" (PDF). RET Academy for International Journals of Multidisciplinary Research (RAIJMR). 5 (10): 2. ISSN 2321-2853 – via JSTOR.
  5. ^ eltweeklyeditor (2014-11-25). "'Importance of worksheets in ESL classrooms' by Neha Joshi". ELTWeekly. Retrieved 2022-09-07.
  6. ^ "Google Scholar: SARVA VIDHYALAYA KELAVNI MANDAL". Google Scholar. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  7. ^ "A survey on IoT privacy issues and mitigation techniques". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2022-09-07.
  8. ^ "Para athlete Pranav Prashant Desai makes Sarva Vidyalaya Kelvani Mandal Proud". The Times Group. September 8, 2020. p. 5. Retrieved September 8, 2022.
  9. ^ "Google Scholar: Sarva Vidhyalaya Kelavani Mandal". Retrieved 2022-09-08. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  • Delete, fails WP:NORG. Reliable sources with significant coverage which are also independent of the subject is simply absent, just a promotional article and citation bombing. Tayi Arajakate Talk 06:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sources provided are trivial mentions or not independent. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:59, 10 September 2022 (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 but with less than usual prejudice against re-nomination, should new arguments be brought forward. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

County Borough of Southend on Sea[edit]

County Borough of Southend on Sea (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 current page was amended to the City of Southend on Sea and there was a prod raised as the page was the same as main Southend Article. The City of Southend does not exist as a governmental district that's the Southend-on-Sea City Council, while the original page was the former local government body that stopped being an entity in 1974. The County Borough had full powers, much like the current Unitary Council has, but lost these when it became Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, even though the boundaries did not change. As such I reverted back to a basic version of original. However should this page exist, or should it be a redirect to the existing Southend-on-Sea City Council page, with the County Borough history added, as currently its a stub. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move back to City of Southend-on-Sea. This is a unitary district with city status while Southend-on-SeaSouthend-on-Sea City Council is a unitary council that runs it. This was discussed at both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 26#Reconstituted districts and Talk:Southend-on-Sea#County Borough of Southend-on-Sea where there were no objections raised. Southend-on-Sea City Council should probably be merged here instead just like how Chelmsford City Council (and Chelmsford Borough Council) redirect to City of Chelmsford. We have separate articles for County Borough of Carlisle and City of Carlisle because in 1974 (district 1) the county borough was abolished and merged with Border Rural District. If you look at Southend-on-Sea in the same order you can see that district 14 only consisted or Southend-on-Sea county borough. This is similar to Category:Districts abolished by the London Government Act 1963 where the likes of Metropolitan Borough of Islington and London Borough of Islington exist separately due to Metropolitan Borough of Finsbury being merged but with Municipal Borough of Harrow it just redirects to London Borough of Harrow because its boundaries didn't change in 1965. The same logic applies here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unitary status is for the council. The district comes under the council control. If you Google search "City of Southend on Sea district atea" the only page comes up is the Wikipedia page for Southend on Sea! This is not sn official designation. Metropolitan and non metropolitan districts can receive Borough status under the 1972 act, which is why Southend Borough Council existed from 1974, when the County Borough was disestablished. The same as Castle Point, which was a district until it received Borough status in 1992. The Chelmsford argument is also void, as in government the Chelmsford area is known as Chelmsford City Council. The argument about the London Borough of Islington is also poor because it is the official designated name for the area run by the council of that name.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • in addition to quote from the non metropolitan district page "Non-metropolitan districts are subdivisions of English non-metropolitan counties which have a two-tier structure of local government.[1] Most non-metropolitan counties have a county council and several districts, each with a borough or district council." The district is run by a council, which is what the page should be called. Based in your argument Essex County Council should by The County of Essex?Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The council is a unitary authority and the district it runs is thus a unitary authority area which is a type of non-metropolitan district. "City of Southend-on-Sea" is the way to title the district (as it holds city status) similar to City of Carlisle and City of Peterborough. Southend Borough Council would have existed prior to 1974 running the county borough and municipal borough. Districts can have borough, city and unitary status for example Castle Point having borough status since 1992 as you pointed out but its still a district! Just like Chelmsford being given city status in 2012 didn't stop it from being a borough or district. The area Chelmsford City Council runs is the district (with city status) of Chelmsford the district its self isn't "Chelmsford City Council".
      • Non-metropolitan districts can have unitary status which means they are also non-metropolitan counties but can still be in a ceremonial county. Essex County Council covers the non-metropolitan county of Essex (the ceremonial county minus Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock) just like Southend-on-Sea City Council runs the unitary district of Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock Council runs the unitary district of Thurrock. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • but the district is an area of geographical government, so the council is the official name for the district. This document from the gov.uk describes the non metropolitan, metropolitan, unitary districts by council name https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1026384/List_of_councils_in_England_2021.pdf . Any district article should be the official name as per the UK government and not a made up title.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the official name of districts. Search gov.uk for non metropolitan districts and that's is what you get. There is no government list other than this. Districts only exist as areas of government, they don't exist as anything else, so it should be the locsl government body. Leigh on Sea has a town council, but they are below Southend City Council, managing a small amount of local government business and Fall within the boundaries of the City Council.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page has been expanded. Also the discussion here is a content dispute, not something for which the deletion process should be used. Peter James (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If you had looked at the actual history of what has happened you would see that the discussion into moving the page occurred on the Southend on Sea settlement Talk:Southend-on-Sea. Slater Steven was the oerson who objected and prod the article after the change from County Borough to City title. The article has been improved by MRSD since I raised the AFD, and I have since asked the question on the geographic notability page and invited oroject members to respond[[19]], only for Crouch, Swale to be the only user to have answered so far. Based upon his own argument, the actual page that should be changed is the Southend-on-Sea City Council page to City of Southend (district), and this page either left or redirected and added to the new district page.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further Comment I have now found an official list of local district boundaries via the Office of National Statistics https://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/documents/ons::local-authority-districts-counties-and-unitary-authorities-april-2021-map-in-united-kingdom-/about. This is the latest version dated 2021. Although Southend received City status this year, Chelmsford that gained City status on 2012 is not named City of Chelmsford (as per Wikipedia article in the district) but just Chelmsford, the name it was given in the 1972 Local Government reforms.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • That list is a list of district councils not districts. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • The map does not say councils, it says metropolitan and non metropolitan districts. In addition, the Council tax: stock of properties, 2018 on gov.uk which states "Table CTSOP1.0: Number of properties by Council Tax band and region, county and local authority district" [20] does not state City of Chelmsford, but Chelmsford snd describes Southend-on-Sea as Southend-on-Sea UA. Also if you go to the Ministry of Housing,

Communities & Local Government Open data portal,[21] search non metropolitan districts and Chelmsford, the district is called Chelmsford, not City of Chelmsford or Chelmsford City Council. Southend no longer comes under the non metropolitan districts list but under the unitary authority list. So therefore we have contradicting information from government bodies. Therefore whom is correct?Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't know if some of the discussion here comes across as just absurd, or just very British.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the benefit of anyone who might look at closing this discussion but isn't British -- the matter is not absurd but needs context. Southend is a former town that recently became a city, promoted in large part to honour David Amess, Southend's longstanding Member of Parliament who was murdered in his constituency office by a constituent (an event that created quite a media circus here). The article purports to be about part of Southend's recent history. It's likely well documented in local government records and there is little doubt that sources exist. At issue is whether this content is a useful step towards a developed article on Southend's history or whether it should be deleted/draftified to make way for other content. I can see both sides of that, so I won't !vote, but I wouldn't want a foreign closer to come along and reject the discussion as unintelligible.—S Marshall T/C 08:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The district gained city status but the settlement still exists. The current district has the same boundaries as the county borough thus this should describe the current unitary district with city status as well as the county borough. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Club Penguin (franchise)#Factory TV specials under WP:AVALANCHE. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We Wish You a Merry Walrus[edit]

We Wish You a Merry Walrus (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)

Also nominating:

Club Penguin: Monster Beach Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Both of the articles' prose are almost just a primary WP:PLOTONLY description with no real world context besides a stub of a development section. I couldn't seem to find any reliable sources talking about these TV specials (Also see WP:FICT). Sparkltalk 18:46, 3 September 2022 (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. czar 18:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by TV Azteca networks[edit]

List of programs broadcast by TV Azteca networks (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)

Very long list of links (WP:NOT), it seems to aim to have each and every program ever broadcast in the Azteca networks. Mostly unsourced. Possible promotion as it often includes upcoming programming. MexTDT (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TV Azteca is notable, its original programming is also notable. But, is it acceptable to have each and every external acquired program ever broadcast by the networks? The PS2 and PS3 are also notable, but the compatibility lists were also deleted (along with other lists) by the same reasons I’m nominating this one for. The Spanish Wikipedia version only has its original programming as agreed by the community there, also to avoid becoming a huge list with original research, maybe it’s time for enwiki to do the same.--MexTDT (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a scope issue then, which also isn't going to be solved on AfD. Following the Spanish Wikipedia's precedent is probably the best move. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - happening to list future programming is not a promotion violation. If you want to open a discussion about having it be a list of original programming only rather than re-broadcasts, then you can absolutely open that issue on the talk page, but this is not a matter for AfD. Broadly speaking, the overall topic is an appropriate list for Wikipedia. matt91486 (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the nominator has stated that the networks original programming is notable but objects to acquired programming so this is a content issue and not suitable for AfD imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2022 (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. DatGuyTalkContribs 18:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of PC games with force feedback support[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Also unsourced and apparently based on an unreliable source (MobyGames). IceWelder [✉] 16:27, 3 September 2022 (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 Boxing at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Light flyweight. DatGuyTalkContribs 18:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ramazan Ballioğlu[edit]

Ramazan Ballioğlu (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)

He competed at the 2000 Olympics but did not win a medal and I don't think he passes WP:NBOXING. A WP:BEFORE search didn't bring up sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2022 (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. DatGuyTalkContribs 18:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Fahie[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources in the article are all trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2022 (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. There is unanimous consensus here among participants other than nominator that the subject meets GNG and as such is notable. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mariatu Candé[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources in the article are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found [22], [23], [24], [25], and [26], among many many other sources. Clearly significant figure in Guinea-Bissau women's football, one of the sources above even dubbed her the "Frank Lampard of Guinea-Bissau" and another dubbed her "undoubtedly an example to follow (for Bissau-Guineans)", probably best ever player, with by far most coverage and one of few to ever play abroad. Also, having started her career in early to mid 2000s, there is most likely offline coverage. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The fourth and fifth posts are from Facebook/Youtube (interview) and can be ruled out as unreliable. The first source appears to be a transcript? of the fifth Youtube link. Interviews are not independent of the subject. The second source relies on quotes from the subject, which is not independent of the subject. The third source barely passes the threshold here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I compared the first source text to the fifth source transcript and found that the first source is not a transcript of the fifth source. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the first 3 sources that Das has found seem good enough to meet GNG. There is enough content aside from just quotes to meet what I would call 'significant'. It's certainly more than trivial coverage and the sources seem to be reliable and independent. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 15:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG based on references whih have been found. Bruxton (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2022 (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 18:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriella Salvadore[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources in the article are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2022 (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 18:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ankita Bhattacharyya[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ankita Bhattacharyya (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)

Known only for one or two events. No indication of importance or notability. Was previously deleted before but was restored due to 'soft delete' policy. Courtesy ping: Ravensfire, Itcouldbepossible, Bonadea, Ahp101. DoraShin15, 15:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, Women, Music, and India. DoraShin15, 15:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same as last time, lack of sources/non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This person is a champion of a biggest reality show of bangla and Its equal to an award. Also I think enough source are available. I have added some sources but it has been removed by an user. All source are from reputed news portal. And I don't know whats the problem of this nominator? First nomination failed, 2 times speed delation failed and now its 2nd nomination! I hope admin will take decision wisely. Montubhai (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She won Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Bangla, which could be seen as meeting criterion #9 of WP:NMUSIC. But NMUSIC says that a musician who meets one or more of the criteria may be notable, not that they are automatically notable, and this does look more like a case of one event only. Fact is that all the sources are about her winning the competition, and there's almost no secondary sourcing (interviews are primary sources, and we'd need secondary sources to show notability). The many sources that were removed as WP:CITEKILL are also about that event, and most of them were press releases (not independent). What has happened since 2019 – are there no more recent sources? --bonadea contributions talk 17:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BLP1E and looks like more of promotion only. 150.107.146.154 (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2022 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khushi Kapoor[edit]

Khushi Kapoor (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)

Clearly fails WP:NACTOR. ManaliJain (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2022 (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. Nobody actually expresses a "keep" opinion here, so... Sandstein 19:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Furkan Özsan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. The article has been deleted twice on Turkish Wikipedia, the last of which was through an XfD in April 2022. Keivan.fTalk 01:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Turkey. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I support deleting the article given Turkish Wikipedia notability guidelines are similar to those on the English Wikipedia and the article has previously been deleted. I also note a preliminary search does not indicate significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Happy to change my submission if further sources are provided, however if Turkish Wikipedians did not have any luck, then I think it is unlikely we will here. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Two of their songs pass WP:NSONG. Their 2019 song Yağmurlar which happens to have 40M views on YouTube reached #77 the Radio Charts on 29 September 2019 as well as #62 on YouTube and #85 on iTunes on other dates. Their 2018 song Müsaadenle placed #99 on the radio chart. I also found that their song Yağmurlar was one of 5 songs nominated for duet of the year in the 2020 Golden Palm Awards which does not match with the information in the article. But this is relevant in regards to WP:NSINGER criteria #8.--Treehorn 1991 (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but placing #77 in a chart alone is not a NSONG pass, not at all. Golden Palm Awards isn't major either: it doesn't even have an article on trwiki. The source you mentioned isn't considered to be reliable. I doubt this passes NSINGER #8. ~StyyxTalk? 12:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed placing high on national music charts is not the end of the discussion, but I think a conversation can be had given that the song has placed on several charts, has a significantly popular music video (40M views is significant) the polularity of which was noted by a major national newspaper, and has been nominated for an award. This makes a strong case for that song being notable.--Treehorn 1991 (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 13:01, 3 September 2022 (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. Sandstein 19:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Young[edit]

Geoff Young (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 full of undue weight from unreliable, non-significant, or otherwise non-independent sources. It was redirected, but has since been restored twice by IP addresses that geolocate to Russia. I'm unable to find three good sources that would allow the article to pass WP:GNG, because it certainly does not pass WP:NPOL. ––FormalDude talk 11:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Kentucky. ––FormalDude talk 11:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep mentioned by Newsweek twice and all political new papers and media sources in Kentucky. Wp I dont like is not a valid reason to not allow a congressional democratic candidate a page of Wikipedia. Ussr? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1FA0:487F:60E2:0:59:4D56:8001 (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC) — 2A00:1FA0:487F:60E2:0:59:4D56:8001 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Newsweek isn't valid as a source, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Mail_&_Guardian Oaktree b (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they have not won — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one. In order for a mere candidate to get a Wikipedia article, they must either (a) have some other claim of notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway (e.g. Hillary Clinton, Herschel Walker, Cynthia Nixon), or (b) show credible evidence that their candidacy is so much more notable than everybody else's candidacies that even if they lose the election in the fall they would still pass the ten year test for enduring significance anyway (e.g. Christine O'Donnell). Neither of those things is in evidence here at all. Given the editwarring, further, we should delete this first and then recreate a redirect back to the election again, so that there isn't anything available in the edit history for non-administrators to revert over. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing here is sufficient grounds for him to already have a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a close one for me. I think strict enforcement of WP:NPOL is usually good especially on congressional candidates. One or two election runs is not really notable. Where I think Young crosses the line and begins to meet WP:GNG is the number of runs he's done and the time he's spent running for office. Young has spent a decade running for office and there are articles describing him as a perennial candidate [27]. There are some pretty decent articles covering his runs for office [28] and his current run has generated pretty unique coverage since many Kentucky dems are refusing to endorse him [29]. In short I think the coverage of him over a decade of political runs is enough to meet WP:GNG as a perennial candidate and there is maybe an argument he barely meets WP:NPOL as "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:Although I do want to note that the article is frequently edited back to a prior version that heavily relies on WP:SPS and I've attempted to cut the WP:SPS and replace the citations with WP:RS multiple times only to have the article reverted back to its old version.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately all the sources you provided are interviews and not independent. Since you recognize the poor content that this article is made up of, I would highly recommend you consider Blow it up and start over as an option. Though I'd want to see independent sources that meet GNG before supporting that option myself. ––FormalDude talk 15:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I think there's a distinction in those articles between citing the journalist's write up (usually in the article before the interview) and the interview itself, but you're definitely right a lot of the articles cited are interviews and given the disruptive edits on the page it probably isn't the best place for that nuanced distinction since other editors really want to cite the interviews themselves.
        However, it is worth noting there are WP:IS here: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] Plus 3 Lexington Herald Articles I can't access that I don't think are interviews but could be wrong. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Those first four are interviews, the 5th is WP:NEWSWEEK, but the last one is good. ––FormalDude talk 02:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        The first two quote him, they aren't published interviews. It looks like the journalists interviewed him to get quotes, but calling the first two not WP:IS interviews seems a stretch; they appear to be normal articles from the The Courier-Journal. The third is an article with a broadcast clip, not an interview. The fourth source is a radio station, but its a news piece by a journalist and not an interview and doesn't even include an audio component. Concede the WP:NEWSWEEK source is bad. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        The third is also an article and the article is an interview, as is the fourth one. The first four are all pieces that are made up substantially of direct quotes from the subject, so they are not independent. ––FormalDude talk 03:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        There is no policy or guideline that excludes interviews carte blanche. There is only an essay WP:INTERVIEW which is fairly nuanced and complicated. Any exclusion of an interview would need to understand why the interview is rejected ie. simply being an interview is not sufficient reason for exclusion. Generally your better off citing policy and guideline, use the essay for 'further explanation'. Or, figure out which policy/guideline should be cited by reading the essay first, to understand why certain types of interview are a problem. Just saying "interviews" is not enough on its own because not all interviews are a problem. There are different types of interview, and depending on what is being cited from the interview it can be a primary and secondary source at the same time. -- GreenC 17:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Considering there's no significant content that isn't from the interviewee in any of these sources, I think it's clear that it's not independent and therefore doesn't count towards notability. I am not saying they can't be used to cite simple facts, just that they can not be used to say the topic is notable. ––FormalDude talk 03:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        There does appear to be secondary source commentary in the Courier-Journal, LEX 18, and WFPL articles for example. But there is still the WP:NPOL aspect. Edit: I agree on the part I am not saying they can't be used to cite simple facts, just that they can not be used to say the topic is notable. that is an important distinction. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC), edited Rauisuchian (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        According to Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability: "A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability." When a publication chooses to interview someone, it is paying attention to them, the essence of notability. WP:NPOL says uelected candidates can still be notable if they meet GNG. -- GreenC 04:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        It also says "Any of the content merely quoting the interviewee should be treated as primary." If you can find secondary coverage from any of these that shows WP:DEPTH, I'd love to see it. ––FormalDude talk 08:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure, but are these sources "merely quoting"? That would be a quote with no comment or participation by the journalist ie. "interspersed with the interviewer's own secondary analysis and thoughts," the essay says. -- GreenC 15:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        No, they're not entirely quotes, but "Any of the content" that is merely quotes must be treated as non-independent. ––FormalDude talk 03:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I think your misinterpreting that paragraph, taking the sentence "Any of the content" out of context with the previous and following sentences in the paragraph. This is what I was saying about interviews, they are complex and nuanced and difficult to understand. The best we have is this essay which is barely understandable. What I think it's trying to say is interviews are often composed of lengthy block quotes which are "merely quoting" dumps of texts, whereas inline quotes "interspersed with the interviewer's own secondary analysis and thoughts," is not "merely quoting". The word "merely" means "just or only" ie. the quote includes some other secondary material, the journalist chose that quote for a reason. They are not just dumping blocks of text ie. "merely quoting". -- GreenC 15:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete largely per Bearcat and nom - this guy fails WP:NPOL despite his many runs and apparent inability to pick a party. PICKLEDICAE🥒 22:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • i added this discussion to wp:Russia wp: ars and to 2022 congressional race to notify other users all these were reverted against Wikipedia policy by user shell
  • bearcat above says after the election? This man is running for congress under 1 of the 2 parties.
  • Notability had not been met it has been exceeded. pov in editing. wp good faith does not mean being blind to definitive bias
  • This man will be at least a footnote in books for decades to come long after we are forgotten.
  • added comment of deletion discussion to WikiProject:Kentucky and his political opponent Andy barr
  • Comment Strongly leaning delete due to Bearcat's reasoning on notability in politics (not enough sources to make each of these runs notable without ever holding office). The onwiki single purpose account campaign is also not helping matters. One issue about the article is that a lot of the notable things about this guy -- like the party switch -- are just reported in self published sources AFAIK. Nuance is required to pick those self published sources between the secondary ones, but then that can be challenged easily and made biased. (Also, I think maybe the WP:NEWSWEEK policy should be reviewed due to their willingness to obtain translated sources and social media sources [like the Daily Dot which is green and arguably more opinionated], but that is another topic). All in all, will probably edit this to a delete but leaving it open for a bit of more discussion. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The source that makes me pause is the WLEX article. The reporter covers the political positions of the subject and gets the reaction of other elected officials about those positions and the subject. By itself, I don't think this source is enough, but at the same time a case can be made that the volume of coverage becomes sufficient to meet GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Notability has not been met. Garnering news coverage only by running for office over and over and then losing over and over? Does not pass the smell test. And does not pass WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable, unelected, regional political candidate; fails WP:POL. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not satisfy political notability, so the question is general notability. The article reads like a campaign brochure, which is primary coverage, and is not about significant coverage by reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While the subject does indeed fail NPOL, there's enough coverage of him to meet the GNG. While it's unlikely he'll ever be elected, losing over and over doesn't disqualify them from having an article (as with Lord Buckethead). DatGuyTalkContribs 11:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you found sources that the rest of us haven't? Because (as discussed above) there's only one independent reliable source with significant coverage, and that obviously is not enough to meet GNG. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article already contains multiple, including 1 2 3 4. Remember that WP:INTERVIEWS is an essay, not policy, and that just because an article about a person contains quotes by them doesn't mean it isn't independent. DatGuyTalkContribs 12:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just don't count run-of-the-mill local coverage that is more than 50 percent direct quotations as a sign of notability. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 12:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not seeing GNG, based on discussion above and my review, of course. Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Bearcat's sentiments. Fails WP:NPOL and there isn't enough in terms of non-run of the mill coverage for a WP:GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2022 (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. All the "keep" opinions are by WP:SPAs, which is not a good sign. Sandstein 19:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Aziz[edit]

Andrew Aziz (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)

Completely non-notable day trader/coach, fails the criteria. Kelpartt (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article is about Wikipedia:Notability (people) Wikipedia:Notability (books) Wikipedia:AUTHOR. Page was never intended to be encyclopedic article of a "day trader" or "coach". Discussions for deletion should be address toward notability of Author and book, not a "day trader" or "coach". 2001:569:77FA:AF00:B54B:3A6B:6694:66A9 (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


UTC)

  • keep: of course a notable trader and author. He is an Author that has been best seller since 2015 and have over 13,500 reviews on Amazon. Based on sales rank and review his books must have been sold over 500,000 copies? How can can someone like him not to be notable? Also Forbes offices members and Entrepreneur VIP author. He is also mentioned in all reliable sources such as Business Insider and Investopedia. If someone like him is not notable, not sure who would fit really to be included in Wikipedia. Although article mentions his achievement but it doesn't read like promo or CV for WP:PROMO. According to some previous comments on this page here many people should be deleted from Wikipedia. I encourage more Admins to review this before making a decision. He is also “not” a broker or coach, he is a famous trader and author. Obviously previous comments did not search him well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.69.69.101 (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, Amazon and its reviews do not meet criteria for WP:Author or WP:NOTBOOK but I think author and his book has more independent sources of notability for both. Communityknlodege (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC) — Communityknlodege (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep: Meets notability criteria of WP:AUTHOR.

Re-reading WP:AUTHOR:

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Andrew Aziz is a well known author in the field of active day trading and psychology. See: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B012C4AU10/

His books overall are well-known, accepted, and well-cited by reliable sources for WP:SNG and WP:GNG. Furthermore, "Andrew Aziz" has a complete Google Search Knowledge Panel, and many terms including him are well-searched google terms and suggested by Google. Andrew Aziz social media is "verified" in all social media: TWTR, IG, YT and FB which needs to be satisfied in several notability guidelines by independent sources of those platforms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Communityknlodege (talk • contribs) 05:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC) — Communityknlodege (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep: Andrew Aziz is most famous for his 2016 book "How to Day Trade for a Living", which is considered a classis in day trading. Author should meet notability criteria of WP:AUTHOR and book should meet notability criteria WP:NOTBOOKS of at least two reliable, independent sources.

Re-reading WP:NOTBOOK

A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

Example of independent reviews of books and Author:

https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/best-day-trading-books https://www.businessinsider.com/stock-market-day-trading-investing-advice-andrew-aziz-former-engineer-2019-10 https://www.investopedia.com/best-day-trading-courses-5176199 https://www.benzinga.com/money/bear-bull-traders-review https://www.tradingreviewers.com/how-to-day-trade-for-a-living-review/ https://www.basicsfortrading.com/post/how-to-day-trade-for-a-living-book-review https://daytradingz.com/best-day-trading-books/ https://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-network/the-successful-story-of-peak-capital-trading-founder-andrew-aziz


this one seem like trivial but a review nonetheless:

https://12min.com/how-to-day-trade-for-a-living-critical%20summary%20review — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:77FA:AF00:B54B:3A6B:6694:66A9 (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for notability of books are irrelevant, because the question being discussed is whether Andrew Aziz is notable, not whether one or more of his books is notable. I totally understand why to a new editor unversed in Wikipedia's ways it may seem natural that notability of a person and notability of work he has produced should be considered as the same thing, but they aren't. As for the "review" you say seems "trivial", yes it is utterly trivial, so much so that it seems a stretch to even call it a review. It is nothing remotely like the substantial coverage required for notability in Wikipedia's terms, even if it were the book, not its author, whose notability is under discussion. JBW (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the excellent point @JBW. However, I think one way of looking at is that these are often correlated in sources. Many of sources also mention the Author in a "notable way", which those independent sources can become a source of notability for Author as well, with some justification. For example Business Insider which is a rs when reviews the book, also notes the author as "world-class" and "successful trader" and coach. Bestwaytoedit (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC) — Bestwaytoedit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@Bestwaytoedit: Yes, of course the two are correlated, but I was just trying to help an inexperienced editor, because at present their comment is unlikely to carry much weight. For what it's worth, my personal view is that there's a good case for giving more weight than we do to coverage of books as evidence of notability of their authors, but this discussion will be assessed on the basis of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as they are, not as you or I would prefer them to be. On the other hand I do not think there's any case at all for taking into consideration such statements as that a person is "world-class" and a "successful trader", not so much because individual statements are not substantial coverage as because they are peacock wording, which convey more about the impression the writer of those expressions wishes to impress on the reader than about the person they are written about. JBW (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


WP:Author could be these rs:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

WP:NOTBOOK could be these independent reviews:

[8] [9] [10] [11]

Bestwaytoedit (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC) — Bestwaytoedit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.vanguardngr.com/2021/01/working-hard-smart-why-one-successful-investor-author-andrew-aziz-believes-that-one-can-lead-to-the-other/
  2. ^ https://www.businessinsider.com/stock-market-day-trading-investing-advice-andrew-aziz-former-engineer-2019-10
  3. ^ https://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-network/the-successful-story-of-peak-capital-trading-founder-andrew-aziz
  4. ^ https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/best-day-trading-courses
  5. ^ https://www.macleans.ca/economy/the-life-of-a-pandemic-day-trader/
  6. ^ https://profiles.forbes.com/members/business/profile/Andrew-Aziz-Founder-CEO-Bear-Bull-Traders/609b1061-8bd6-4b54-9cf4-1b0edcd93c56
  7. ^ https://www.entrepreneur.com/author/andrew-aziz
  8. ^ https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/best-day-trading-books
  9. ^ https://www.tradingreviewers.com/how-to-day-trade-for-a-living-review/
  10. ^ https://www.basicsfortrading.com/post/how-to-day-trade-for-a-living-book-review
  11. ^ https://daytradingz.com/best-day-trading-books
Thanks for this. What about this publication? [36] This should work with Business Insider for two sources of notability. Bestwaytoedit (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC) — Bestwaytoedit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Questionable reliability of that content aside, that's an interview. Interviews are not independent sources and do not contribute to the notability of the person being interviewed. - Aoidh (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, and appreciate that you at least did not call me sockfarm! Ref above is not an interview, but written after discussion with Author. Very similar to many format of reporting. I do believe based on Wikipedia:NAUTHOR at least two sources are valid for this author. I have seen surpassingly much weaker sources to pass notability for some figures here.
I still believe these three sources are not-affiliated, not-paid, not-solicited reliable sources for passing criteria [37] [38] [39]
Andrew Aziz has some sort of a fan club in the Net, and he runs meeting all around the world with his traders. I have met him personally, and follow his works for years, but I have no COI really. So I do understand the enthusiasm in voting with some folks, but a fair Admin should consider that notability for Wikipedia:NAUTHOR is VERY CLEAR. "Two" reliable sources, which I think this article has.
Reg questionability, I understand questionability of some sources, but that can go to pretty much on any source on Internet. I can call all your sources quesiotbale (for the sake of argument of coruse). CNN and Fox News are also very questionable, depending on how you ask and from which political perceptive you look at them. CNN is fake news for one part and FOX is out of touch with reality. on another group One can question 13000 review as fake and purchased, and everything from COVID to US election conspiracy and questionable.
Thanks anyways. Bestwaytoedit (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You say notability through WP:NAUTHOR is "very clear", but the claim to WP:NAUTHOR is an Amazon ranking and a number of reviews, neither of which are criteria of WP:NAUTHOR and both of which are so easily manipulated as to be meaningless metrics for anything, especially notability. Are there any reliable sources that show that this ranking on Amazon is in some way significant? We don't even have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, let alone ones showing that the subject's Amazon book ranking is in some way a significant feat that in any way even begins to approach meeting any of the criteria of WP:NAUTHOR. The only thing that is "very clear" is that this article's subject is propped up by sources that fall apart under scrutiny and that do not contribute to the reliability of the subject. As for the source I called an interview, I don't see how it's not an interview but that label, whether it applies or not, is ultimately immaterial to the issue of the source; all of the coverage of the subject in that source is from the subject himself through his own words and opinions. Whether you call that an interview or not doesn't matter; what he says is not independent of himself, no matter what format that comes in. So while yes, it is an interview by definition (a report or reproduction of information so obtained), even if it wasn't it wouldn't make the source's content somehow independent, when the content comes from the subject himself. - Aoidh (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks for the patience on this! Specially I know an experienced Wikipedian like you often do not bother to explain very much.
No I do not want to talk about Amazon reviews or ranking at all for notability. But I can not really accept possibly that all of his 13,500 Amazon reviews are fake and ranking of his books are all manipulated (very unlikely) and does not prove anything about notability of this person and that his work is widely read and well-received. Furthermore his Google Knowledge Badge verifies a significant amount of search on Google for him, and his followings and verified accounts in all social media that passed through independent review of those medias.
But even if we do not agree on that, here is notability Criteria I like to emphasize
WP:NOTBOOK
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
"The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book."
And notable books come under notable authors: Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes
  • "Published authors are kept as notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work, or if their work is likely to be very widely read.
  • Books are notable (and thus kept) if well-known, and should be listed under the author if not."
Criteria for NOTBOOK is clear, and sources that talk about his books, such as [2] [3] [4] can satiety criteria of 1 (at least 2). You may say, OK all of them are questionable, but again questionability is a very subjective. Anyone can call anything questionable. What is important here, sources are not-affiliated, not-paid, not solicitated, and they are NOT yellow journalism. All sources obviously mention a highly regarded book, a best seller, and introduce author in a notable way.
So if his books are notable (which I think they are), the author should be notable, there is no way these two can become uncorrelated.
Another Comment was his book is Vanity press and can not be notable, but here is the criteria I like to emphasize:
According to Wikipedia:Notability (books) vanity press can meet criteria of 1 for notable books. "Exceptions do exist, such as Robert Gunther's Early Science in Oxford and Edgar Allan Poe's Tamerlane, but both of these books would be considered notable by virtue (for instance) of criterion 1."
Unfortunately damage by his fans apparently here are big that I may not be able to change your consensus that Andrew Aziz actually is notable, but in fairness, he passes criteria of a notable author in my humble opinion. I hope I can at least transfer my ideas to you. Bestwaytoedit (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have a position on the fate of this article, it's just very odd that a brand new editor, with their 2nd edit ever, would nominate this article for deletion. Is Andrew Aziz considered controversial? Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Liz, Andrew Aziz has a combination of fans and haters in the Internet. He has been a target of several notorious and convicted defamtors before. See this: [40] If you read comments around that video you see how he has haters and fans at the same time. Video is nonsense of course if you watch it completely and it is only a clickbait for the producer to make money from YT Ads.
    I think according to sources such as such as [2] [3] [4] one can reasonably believe he is notable as an Author, and his books specially for 2016 How to Day Trade for a Living. It is hard to assume all of his 13,300 verified purchased reviews and rankings are fake. Amazon is also cracking down heavily on fake reviews and delete them. Andrew Aziz Google Badge and verified social media accounts also may shows a notability. Since his books are not published through traditional publishing routes, it is not listed in any NYT bestsellers or other lists because only traditional publishing houses will be considered in those lists.
    It is generally safe to assume that his work is widely-accepted by trading community, yet hard to quantify exactly. He is an invited speakers in high quality events such as MoneyShow: [41] which can show notability in his field as a trader and author similar to other traders authors: Alexander Elder or Brian Shannon
    But more than anything else a very clear criteria for WP:Author can be met just by these sources: [42][43][44]
    Disclaimer: I have met Andrew Aziz in one of his conferences and followed his books and trading work for few years, but I have no COI whatsoever. Just an editor familiar with the article, that is all. Bestwaytoedit (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: this comment is without merit to the notability of the subject itself, but this AfD's nom is very odd, but absolutely does fit a certain pattern, especially given this article's (not immediately apparent) connection with India; the nom's first edit was to place an UPE tag on the article page, the second and third were this AfD, and the fourth and fifth were to create their userpage and talk page so that they weren't redlinks and therefore not immediately obvious that it was a brand new account. All of those edits were done within 120 seconds of each other and they have not edited since (and very likely will not edit again). They knew exactly what they were doing, and there is no way this is their only account. In my (limited) experience with UPEs and with what I've seen on AN/I, nobody hates an article created by a perceived UPE more than another paid editor does, especially in the realm of UPEs from India and about topics in any way related to India. I'm not saying this article was created by an UPE, I don't know, but I am absolutely positive that the person behind the account that AfD'd this is a paid edtior, likely part of a company that advertises article creation services, who is rallying against the (perceived) competition. Their very first edit gives their intentions away immediately; it is not the article or its subject they have an issue with, it is the competition from another UPE that they are trying to sabotage in order to increase their own standing. I've seen it before and this ticks all the right boxes, so I just thought I'd explain what's going on here. - Aoidh (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2022 (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. DatGuyTalkContribs 15:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Casablanca Film Factory[edit]

Casablanca Film Factory (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)

Film company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - despite all the references, there is not much in-depth coverage about the company itself (as distinct from individual films or the film's directors). MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:39, 3 September 2022 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1911-12 FC Barcelona season[edit]

1911-12 FC Barcelona season (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:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. Earlier redirected to FC Barcelona but now restored. The identical article 1911–12 FC Barcelona season was also redirected due to WP:NSEASONS. The Banner talk 10:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Sukhoi Su-25#Variants while also possibly mentioning it in List of Sukhoi aircraft DatGuyTalkContribs 15:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhoi T-12 Shturmovik-90[edit]

Sukhoi T-12 Shturmovik-90 (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 aircraft appears to fail WP:N as it is lightly covered, at best, in reliable sources.

The best source I've found is Assaltatori ed aerei da attacco al suolo russi e sovietici. Progetti, prototipi ed aerei operativi, which is copied/translated in this potentially unreliable site used in the article currently. There is also an article by Piotr Butowski in Combat Aircraft from November 1999, although I can't verify that this website copied it accurately, and the aircraft appears to be on the cover of Unflown Wings: Soviet/Russian Unrealized Aircraft Projects 1925-2010.

There are also unreliable sources out there, like this fascinating 2006 thread on the Secret Projects forum and a article on LiveJournal from at least that long ago.

On the flip side, this aircraft plan is omitted from otherwise topical books like Soviet Aircraft Industry or Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot (which the T-12 nominally would have replaced).

In sum, this topic should be mentioned in places like Twin-fuselage aircraft or Sukhoi Su-25, which it isn't currently, but as a standalone article it doesn't appear to be notable for our purposes. I would welcome anyone who has other sources! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that I've mentioned this nomination at WT:MILHIST#Does anyone have info about this strange twin-fuselage Soviet CAS aircraft?, in the hopes that subject matter experts there will have access to sources I'm not able to find. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With the additional sources given below, I would prefer to redirect this article, whether that's to Twin-fuselage aircraft, Sukhoi Su-25, or a different more-relevant article that I haven't thought of. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Aviation. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It gets a mention in Buttler, Tony; Gordon, Yefim (2004). Soviet Secret Projects: Bombers Since 1945. Hinkley, UK: Midland Publishing. ISBN 1-85780-194-6., probably about a third to a half a page of text. That probably counts as one RS.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also a very, very brief mention (and a picture) in the 1999/2000 edition of Brassey's World Aircraft & Systems Directory, which speculates whether a mysterious "stealth ground attack aircraft" referred to by the C-in-C of the Russian Air Force as being under development, refers to the T-12.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Nigel Ish: Ah! I'm happy to hear that there's at least a couple more sources out there that I wasn't able to find. However, it doesn't sound like they would qualify as 'significant coverage'? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The coverage in Buttler & Gordon could probably count as significant, the coverage in Brassey's isn't significant.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Respectfully, I don't think less than a page in a book counts there. :-) It certainly feels like it fails the "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" notability criteria. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support a merge with Twin-fuselage aircraft. I agree that depth of coverage isn't sufficient for a standalone article (at least not with the sources we know as of now), but some sourced information could probably find its way into this one. BilletsMauves€500 20:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spanish isn't my strongest language, but I know enough to recognise that this is significant coverage, and the source seems reliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey Phil Bridger! I think you're right that Zona Militar is legitimate. However, they allow for open article submissions and the author of this specific piece is not listed in the magazine's professional staff. Moreover, there are four sources listed at the bottom. Three of them are forums or similar, and the fourth is no longer accessible/not available on the Internet Archive. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider the option of Merge or Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:06, 3 September 2022 (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! 08:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kamley[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kamley (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 appear to meet WP:NFF. Presented sources are not reliable. Hitro talk 09:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Punjab. Hitro talk 09:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources aren't reliable and doesn't pass notability. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 10:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete currently fails WP:NFILM, and WP:GNG as well. Can be recreated when the film meets either one of these guidelines. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Belmont[edit]

Sebastian Belmont (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)

PROD removed by article creator who is also the author of an article about himself, so clear WP:COI. Even with this aside, I cannot find the sufficient WP:SIGCOV needed to demonstrate notability and the references offered merely confirm participation in the specified productions, rather than discuss the subject in detail. Subject originally posted many links to their own social media which demonstrates their desire for publicity (though since removed). Appears to exist solely as a means to promote the subject. Bungle (talk • contribs) 08:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, and Australia. Bungle (talk • contribs) 08:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete largely non-existent sourcing, having done a GSearch no stories come up. Vanity, promotional piece, non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article does not state when, where and by whom each play was produced. Did he play any leading roles with, or direct, professional companies in significant long-running productions? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:CREATIVE. LibStar (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity article created by the subject. Nothing notable to see here. WWGB (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enkel Dauti[edit]

Enkel Dauti (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 claims to notability here are enough to probably escape a PROD but ultimately not enough to justify an article. He played 2 cup games for a prominent Albanian club but then completely disappeared 10 years ago. He also won the Kupa e Shqipërisë in 2011 with KF Tirana but doesn't look like he played a game. Google News has nothing at all on Dauti. DDG yielded a bunch of database sources and one passing mention in Panorama. Search under his full name yields zilch.

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC #5, the latter explicitly states that database sources do not confer notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - clearly fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not nearly enough to meet GNG. I can't find any sources to add to what the nominator found. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gordon (1950s)[edit]

Al Gordon (1950s) (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 penciller/inker. Credits in a database do not satisfy WP:NARTIST, and no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Does not appear to have created any notable characters, works, or books, merely illustrated them. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

K21 News[edit]

K21 News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find significant coverage on the company that meets WP:NCORP. Article does not meet the guidelines for companies DavidEfraim (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 05:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nothing on this page indicates its notability. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:18, 4 September 2022 (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. The "keep" !voters have made a good-faith effort here, but the lack of substance in the secondary sources has been commented on by everyone else, and not refuted. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Keshary Shah[edit]

Anil Keshary Shah (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)

Bio spam fails WP:GNG. Little to no independent significant coverage. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Often quoted in news media
The Kathmandu Post
  1. "Anupama Khunjeli: Women should have the confidence to demand what we want". kathmandupost.com.
  2. "Bipana Sharma crowned Glocal Teen Hero 2015". kathmandupost.com.
  3. "Betan Karnali Hydel Project: Nabil, Nepal SBI sign MoU". kathmandupost.com.
  4. "Bankers fret as stock of loanable funds drops". kathmandupost.com.
  5. "Nirmal 'Nims' Purja awarded 'Heroes of Nepal' title". kathmandupost.com.
  6. "Build back better". kathmandupost.com.
  7. "Daraz hosts first ever Seller summit in Nepal". kathmandupost.com.
  8. "Nabil Bank opens 12 new branches in rural areas". kathmandupost.com.
  9. "Nepal Rastra Bank rolls out Monetary Policy 2019-20". kathmandupost.com.
  10. "Alipay and WeChat Pay are illegal, officials say, but they have no idea how to control it". kathmandupost.com.
  11. "Banks effortful to ease interest rate volatility". kathmandupost.com.
  12. "Daraz hosts first ever Seller summit in Nepal". kathmandupost.com.
The Himalayan Times
  1. Nabil Bank ties up with Qatar Airways
  2. Nabil, OIBN sign MoU
  3. Nabil DigiBank Portal launched
  4. PM Oli launches bank account scheme
  5. Banks taking caution to sanction big loans
  6. Baliyo Nepal Cup next month
Others
  1. "Nabil Bank's plan to acquire NBB hangs in balance due to 'staff adjustment' issue after unification". My Republica.
  2. "Nabil Bank CEO Anil Shah tests positive for COVID-19". Khabarhub.
  3. "Construction of India-assisted hydropower project in Nepal on fast-track". Business Standard. 16 August 2020.
  4. Sapkota, Shreya (13 January 2018). "30 Lakh Mobile Banking Users in Nepal". TechLekh.
  5. "$1B Hydropower Project on India-Nepal Border Advances with Contracts | 2020-09-04 | Engineering News-Record". enr.com.
  6. "Assessing sustainability of making private toilets public". Online Khabar. 16 June 2022.
  7. "Getting rid of the brokers - Nepali Times". Nepali Times.
  8. Chaudhary, Rajkumar (30 April 2020). "Nabil Bank launches e@Nabil for its corporate clients in Nepal". Enepsters.
Sorry for stacking sources one upon another, but there's so so so many. He is a leader in his field; deserves an article. Also, per WP:IS, 'news media' is considered 'potentially independent' source when writing about a person. Thus, I don't think this should be deleted. Kind regards, — Tulsi 24x7 03:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are just not going to use online khabar to establish notability, especially for these kinds of topics. THT piece is a press release about his appointment, and doesn't count. Kathmandu Post's is an interview. I am not going to look at the "often quoted in news media" links as those do not make a person notable (except maybe academics in certain contexts). I find it hard to believe that someone would find out a person had been CEO of two banks and think "Wow, this is an achievement worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia! I must do this post-haste." Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Became the Nabil Bank's first Nepali CEO is definitely something, "Wow, this is an achievement worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia! I must do this post-haste." Kind regards, — Tulsi 24x7 11:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Although Nabil has a large amount of media coverage, I can't find anything that is quality, in-depth coverage except for interviews. I would suggest merging to Nabil Bank, but it seems he is no longer the CEO. Same goes for Mega Nepal bank. Just being from a prominent Nepali family, having a successful banking career, and being a well-known personality in Nepal is not enough to qualify for notability. I don't see that any of the sources that Tulsi brought contain in-depth coverage. Chagropango (talk) 07:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable as CEO of Nabil Bank which was Nepal's first private bank. There is nothing wrong with interviews as part of the notability equation. The word "interview" does not appear at WP:Notability (people) or WP:Notability. The user essay WP:Interviews is neither policy or guideline. And is more nuanced than "interviews don't count". Nor is it straight-forward if an interview is a primary or secondary source. Anyone claiming interviews don't count has some explaining to justify the position about that particular interview. -- GreenC 03:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
​When is an interview a secondary source? Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read WP:Interviews like all of it? This is an essay, it contains useful information. But it's not the kind of thing that auto fails notability due to WP:Interviews it's too nuanced and contextual. -- GreenC 03:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop patronising, and explain how this constitutes WP:SIGCOV. Thanks! Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me a question which has an entire section devoted to it in the essay WP:Interview. So I asked if you had read it, rather than repeating what that section says. That you asserted I was "patronizing" is odd. You are the one who claims Interview don't count, but apparently had not read the only essay that exists on the subject, even after I already linked to it in the post you are replying to. As for your request how that source constitutes GNG it's one of multiple sources. The word "significant" is not word count, it means significant enough to be notable - which is 100% subjective. It could be a single sentence, it's what the content says not how many words. Or in this case the fact this person was highlighted by a reliable source, that the source considered them notable enough to publish an entire interview, is sufficient to include it as one of the sources that meets GNG. -- GreenC 16:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you have to know here is that WP:INTERVIEW news sources are not notable enough while such articles may not be independent of the subject matter.Additdonaly, they are regarded as self-published material
DIVINE (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any indication this source is not independent of the subject. That's a claim you need to show, I can't prove a negative. The word "interview" does not appear anywhere at WP:SELFPUB. As the essay INTERVIEW says, the question over self-pub is a matter of how your using the source, the same source might be primary in one instance and secondary in another. If your quoting based on what the person said about themselves, that it is self-pub. But in this case we are not, the source is being used to cite material written by the journalist who is giving the interview. -- GreenC 16:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So What do you look for when you’re hiring employees?Such types of personal questions on publication should be regarded as reliable SRC here in wiki? As per WP:INTERVIEW it's clearly mentioned Interviews are generally reliable for the fact that the interviewee said something, but not necessarily for the accuracy of what was said. The publications are merely repeating their comments, typically with minimal editing. No matter how highly respected a publication is, it does not present interviewee responses as having been checked for accuracy. In this sense, interviews should be treated like self-published material. DIVINE (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is what our Wikipedia article says:
Shah was born in August 1 to parents Narayan Keshari Shah and Bhinda Swari Shah. He studied at Harvard Kennedy School, pursued Master of Business Administration at FMS Delhi and completed Bachelor of Business Administration at George Washington University in the United States.[1]
This is what the kathmandupost.com says:
"Anil Keshary Shah has been the chief executive officer of Nabil Bank, one of Nepal’s premier banks since 2018. Shah, 53, studied at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Faculty of Management Studies, Delhi University and at the George Washington University in the United States."
Setting aside the text doesn't fully verify, the above text is written by Himendra Mohan Kumar who is the journalist giving the interview. It is secondary source material. WP:INTERVIEW says "If the material is secondary, and if it is published in a reliable publication, then it can sometimes be used to cite facts about third parties". As noted by INTERVIEW, a source can contain both primary and secondary material, it depends which part is being cited. -- GreenC 04:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC) GreenC 04:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to seriously argue that two sentences atop an interview—(1) the current job of the interviewee and (2) where they went to school—are enough to qualify the source for WP:GNG, I don't know what to say. I especially don't know what to say considering we are talking about a person in the money business. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those two sentences establish the reliability of the source per the section Wikipedia:Interviews#Reliability. But there is also Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability does the interview contribute to notability? I would agree they are not the most probing questions, but they are not obviously marketing either. Questions like "How do you cope with criticism?" and about having to leave his daughter behind in the US are not clearly marketing it looks like a genuine sincere interview. That a reliable source gave attention to the subject contributes to notability. -- GreenC 04:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains, it does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Without sources (plural) qualifying for GNG, community consensus says we don't write stand alone articles. Without in-depth coverage in high quality, completely independent, reliable sources, we can not produce a balanced biography on a living person. When we rely on scraping, on primary coverage, on press releases, etc., we end up with a resume like the current article. All it says is where the subject studied and what jobs he had. That's simply not worth a stand-alone. We ought to be able to show how a person is worthy of note by an encyclopedia. People ought to leave having learned something when they click an article. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "fact", only disagreement. I think it does meet GNG. I get it, you disagree, but please don't hammer away at my vote with your opinions, use your own vote for that. Anyway your making stuff up about "relying on press release" the same way you said interviews don't count. -- GreenC 15:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my opinion, it's community consensus. But you're right. I am clearly not going to change your mind. Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Thought Leadership Interview: Anil Keshary Shah". The Kathmandu Post.
  • Additional on my keep, the topic may not have huge in-depth coverage, but it definitely has multiple independent reliable sources from well-established news outlets of Nepal which is enough to be combined and demonstrate notability per WP:NBASIC. To support my statement, see these sources mentioned below.
  1. "Nabil goes rural". Nepali Times.
  2. "Selfie reveals the photographer in banker Shah". The Himalayan Times.
  3. "बैंकर अनिल शाहलाई कोरोना संक्रमण". Annapurna Post.
  4. "नबिल बैंकका कार्ड बाहकले कतार एयरवेजमा छुट पाउने". Ekantipur.com (in Nepali).
  5. "कर्पोेरेट दसैं योजना र किनमेल". Saptahik.
I deny these sources as trivial coverage of the subject even if you do. Also, the topic meets additional criteria for WP:ANYBIO as the subject has received several awards (the list is incomplete). Moreover, a book has covered about him Retirement at Fifty. If editing can improve the article, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Its not a big deal; notability is only a mere test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. Became the first Nepali CEO of Nepal's first private bank, Nabil Bank is definitely something "worthy of notice" and have potentially a huge merit to have an article. That's it. I rest my case. It should be kept. Thank you for your understanding. — Tulsi 24x7 08:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, I suppose we are going to write "As of 2019, Shah's wife did his shopping for him for the Dashain festival. When he did go shopping, he went to Durbarmarg, New Road or Bhatbhateni supermarket" if we are going to use this (your No. 5). Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely misleading me, my context/point of view here. I am saying that the topic has multiple independent reliable sources. — Tulsi 24x7 03:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...that we can't actually use? Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There aren't enough sources to demonstrate enough importance. The majority of the sources are secondary and lack credibility. DIVINE (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect: Per nom. The argument that being CEO of a notable bank passes for GNG is somewhat flawed. Had that been the case, every-time a CEO is appointed to this bank, a new article will appear. Because this person is active in media, various articles pops up in search and mentions in news articles. There are few interviews in National TV as well such as this one. But there is no indepth coverage in any sources. So, I feel this article lies in a gray zone. At best, it can be redirected to Nabil Bank. Best! nirmal (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+ And regarding the awards, note that "Success Achievers Awards 2021" is provide by a dubious organization called Anuj Media (never heard of it). "Manager of the Year Award 2008" could be somewhat notable. And, I could not find any info about "Asian Idol 2007", is it a musical award?nirmal (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I do not see any consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agree with nom, vanity spam with routine sourcing, nothing significant found. Oaktree b (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Telemaque[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Genuine Fakes[edit]

The Genuine Fakes (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 general notability guideline and notability guidelines for bands. amusingly, many of the good ol' {{find sources}} results lead to the phrase "genuine fakes". lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 04:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 3 September 2022 (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. DatGuyTalkContribs 15:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Dvir[edit]

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

Nonnotable alien witness, crook healer Loew Galitz (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

  • Keep There has already been a discussion on this. He's appeared in articles on The Jerusalem Post, and appeared multiple times on Israeli TV in the 90s and 2000s. Plus, where else on Wikipedia will you read about Jewish aliens healing people in Hebrew?? --Spafky (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, "not independent from the subject"? --Spafky (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mean "from the words of the subject". The article about a person cannot be based solely on interviews with the person and person's writings. Loew Galitz (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see more feedback but this person doesn't seem to meet WP:AUTHOR.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep AUTHOR was my first thought, but he's got multiple mentions in Gbooks and a few in GScholar of substance, as well as what's discussed above for GNG. Not sure what he does exactly, but it's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Banachiewicz (crater). Liz Read! Talk! 05:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Knox-Shaw (crater)[edit]

Knox-Shaw (crater) (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 lunar crater does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:NASTRO, the coverage in the article seems to consist of nothing more than passing mentions in relation to it being named after the astronomer Harold Knox-Shaw, a search of google scholar did not turn up any studies that gave the crater significant coverage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. Liz Read! Talk! 04:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jahan Ahir[edit]

Jahan Ahir (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, WP:NOLYMPICS and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following for the same reasons, all are 1948 Olympic water polo players from India with 1-2 database references.

Gora Seal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Samarandra Chatterjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Suhas Chatterjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dwarkadas Murarji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Durga Das (water polo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jamini Das (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • No, it is GNG, even if a medal is won. NSPORTS makes that crystal clear. Alvaldi (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 20:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Awwal Jaunpuri[edit]

Abdul Awwal Jaunpuri (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:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR. Sources are another encyclopedia and a general history books on islam. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 03:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 03:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India. Justiyaya 03:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am very confused by this nomination. Generally, having a biography in a national encyclopedia like Banglapedia: the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh is understood to be a pass of WP:ANYBIO. A national encyclopedia is generally more selective than a national biographical dictionary. --Jahaza (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally I would agree with you but in this case that is the only real source of information about this person. Other than being noted briefly in two history books and the national encyclopedia there isn't much else I could find. I was hopeful that Banglapedia would have more information or sources but it doesn't include any. I'm not opposed to withdrawing the nomination if there's consensus that you can establish notability with just an article in a national encyclopedia. The reason I wanted some more references was to sort of filter out what counts in these encyclopedias, I figure if you have an article in one AND one more solid reference then you should be good. If not then there could be over a thousand articles crafted briefly talking about someone only because they were in another encyclopedia. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 06:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, yes? I think we could create articles on any topic that has a entry in an important national encyclopedia or national dictionary of biography. In fact, in the past we have imported wholesale the texts of various respected encyclopedias that were out of copyright. We probably wouldn't do exactly that today, but I think all of the topics found in those articles are probably still covered, although sometimes merged or otherwise obscured. Jahaza (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is mentioned in historian Muhammad Mojlum Khan's book which covers an ethnically-diverse select list of influential people in Bengal's history. There are citations in the chapter dedicated to him which I can also add to the article. There's also a lot more information that can be found about him online. This article could just do with more references and you could add a template for that, rather than request it to be deleted. Jaunpurzada (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jaunpurzada you could also just add the references you say you have and I can close this AfD as a speedy keep. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 00:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is mention in Banglapedia, National encyclopedia of Bangladesh. Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 06:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thank you @Jaunpurzada for adding those sources and improving the article. I'm really grateful that we have people like you here to help us improve and save important articles. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 20:22, 6 September 2022 (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 believe the consensus is to Keep this article and it is no longer completely unsourced. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Air Flight 2033[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Korean Air Flight 2033 (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)

Korean Air Flight 2033

Unsourced article about a non-notable incident. An article on this topic was deleted eight years ago by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean Air Flight 2033. The originator then created an article on 2 September 2022 with an edit summary including "I personally don’t know how to do the external links or references." It was then moved to draft space, and a note was left on the author's talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Javyriv&type=revision&diff=1108014892&oldid=1108014130&diffmode=source, cautioning not to move the draft back to article space without references, and to use the AFC process. The originator then created this article in article space without references again. This is both a conduct issue and a content issue, but AFD is a content forum and should delete the unsourced article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Had the same accident occurred in the US or Europe, no-one would dream of nominating it for deletion, but since it's a domestic flight somewhere in the far East, who cares; this strikes me as systemic bias. Yes, the article needs a lot of work and there is a dearth of English sources (although there are some: LA Times, The Indepenedent), but this event is as notable as any of the countless runway excursions with fatalities or hull losses that have their own article here – see the (inappropriate) See also section for a sample. By the way, the pilot was Canadian. --Deeday-UK (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and South Korea. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Deeday. I'm not sure about this being a case of systemic bias, but the subject is notable. A couple more sources have also been added to the article since the nomination. BilletsMauves€500 10:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – sufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability seems to exist (also this in addition to the ones linked by Deeday, along with the two references in the Korean Wikipedia article), though it would also be helpful if someone could search Korean sources, where more detailed/lasting coverage could more likely be found. This almost sounds like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but the needed coverage appears to be there. Copyvio concerns have already been addressed, and any other user conduct issues would be out of this discussion's scope. Complex/Rational 15:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment might be notable, but you're needing better sources than what's given here. It happened over 30 yrs ago, should be something out there if it is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - User:Deeday-UK and maybe User:BilletsMauves - I take strong exception to the argument either of systemic bias or of bias. I nominated the article for deletion because it was tendentiously restored to article space without references, even after it had been moved to draft space so that it could be sourced. I would have done the same if it had been a runway overrun incident in Iowa or Manitoba or Dorsetshire. Articles in Wikipedia should have references. Anyone who doesn't know that needs to learn that if they want to edit Wikipedia. The current references were added by another editor after the article was nominated. If you want to say that passes the Heymann test, maybe that is your Heymann test. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe this is a notable enough incident, the article just needs some re-working. The lead needs re-writing for clarity, and finding more sources with more info would be beneficial- however, I do not believe it needs to be completed deleted. It's a stub that needs some help. SparklingSnail (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I have now added the above two sources to the article and tidied it up. With regard to 'Other stuff exists', I'd like to point out that within the Wikiproject Aviation, these kind of accidents resulting in casualties or hull losses of major airliners are routinely covered through dedicated articles, even if some accidents receive far less news coverage and mentions in RS than others. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2022 (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! 01:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bicentenario Pueblo Nuevo Stadium[edit]

Bicentenario Pueblo Nuevo Stadium (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:GNG. This is not really a "stadium", just a city football field with some covered bleacher seats on one side. None of the sources provide any independent in-depth coverage. WP:MILL. MB 01:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Chile. MB 01:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I couldn't find anything, and nom's description of the stadium is accurate. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 02:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 07:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 07:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Olivia Wilde. Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Up (film)[edit]

Wake Up (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)

Insignificant and under-sourced. Anything that can be said about it could be merged into Olivia Wilde's article. Sricsi (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:34, 3 September 2022 (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/2022_September_3&oldid=1109634830"