Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 15	October 17 >

Guide to deletion

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 redirect‎ to The Explorers and Early Colonists of Victoria. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Alston

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 9#John Alston. C F A 💬 23:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Scotland, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NBIO. Geschichte (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to The Explorers and Early Colonists of Victoria. There’s just not enough to verify his identity and notable work. I won’t oppose a deletion, but a redirect is preferred because printed documents could be found. Bearian (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Hung-ryong

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Corresponding article on Korean Wikipedia is a brief dumping ground. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Palh

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

There is insufficient in-depth coverage of this individual to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. This individual has never won a provincial or national election. The page's author holds the view that election candidates are inherently notable, regardless of whether they win. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Law, Politics, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources are secondary as per WP:GNG, the article is start class and is barely in-depth after the changes, are you still arguing for it to be deleted despite it no longer including primary sources and only containing news reports as sources? Also he isn’t just a candidate, he is the General Secretary of Pakistan’s largest political party and the CEO of a human rights organization. Titan2456 (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is the provincial general secretary of his political party, nominated by his colleague Asad Umar. It raises the question: how many provincial general secretaries of any Pakistani political party, who have never been elected to public office, currently have Wikipedia articles? Although, this point may not hold much significance. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Article does not have significant coverage to meet WP:GNG even though they are elected as local official

Per this clause under Notability for politician and judges "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." Tesleemah (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I have concerns that the nominator is a POV pusher and has a biased agenda, is doing their best to attack anything related to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. However, I have to agree with their nomination in this case, as this BLP doesn't meet NPOLITICIAN and clearly doesn't come close to passing the GNG, either. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tesleemah He has never been elected to a local office either, so you might want to reconsider and change your vote to “Delete”. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, he is the General Secretary of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)'s Sindh chapter. I'm still keeping my vote as soft/weak delete Tesleemah (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tesleemah Being the general secretary of a political party is not considered a local elected office. When WP:NPOL refers to local elected office, it means positions like mayor or city council member. Furthermore, even as general secretary, he was appointed by another party official, not elected. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Fail GNG--Gul Butt (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. Wikibear47 (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject fails N:POL Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect, if it can be verified that this is an alternate name. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kobbari Lavuju

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

Fails verification. Unsourced since creation in 2009. Possibly a misspelling of kobbari laddu (coconut jaggery laddu). Walsh90210 (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Andhra Pradesh. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unsourced and fails verification. Alternatively redirect to Laddu#Coconut_laddu. मल्ल (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. On the whole there seems to be a rough consensus to delete this as not being a real thing, but without prejudice towards a recreation as a redirect. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bergen Commuter Rail

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

There exists no such entity as "Bergen Commuter Rail". Neither reference in the article mentions this fictitious entity, and a quick web search only returns Wikipedia articles, mirrors, and blogs that are most likely WP:CITOGENESIS. No Norwegian public body mentions this term on their website. The railway line between Bergen and Voss is documented at Voss Line. The service between Bergen and Arna is known as the L 4 line, and between Bergen, Voss, and Myrdal, as the R 40. Official route map. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Norway. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At first I thought this could be the result of a poor translation, but it does seem to be entirely fabricated. The sources provided do not support the claims either (the annual ridership claim never appears in the provided source, for example). ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 00:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does this fall into WP:G3 territory? Esolo5002 (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid verging into a Wikipedia:Personal attack on the creator. It is obvious that the article was created in good faith. Geschichte (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, this article was created in 2008 by a very productive user. It clearly represents a good-faith effort to write about the local and regional train routes ending at Bergen, but grouping them together like this isn't actually supported by anything. In fact, the supposed Norwegian name, Vossebanen, is actually just the name of the Voss Line. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 08:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not this article was created in good faith is irrelevant. If it's fabricated, it should be speedy deleted as a hoax. I didn't say anything about the original creator (in fact I asked a question) so I'm not sure how this could be percieved as an attack. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esolo's comment is nowhere near a personal attack. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 19:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Vossebanen They do call the service "Vossebanen" per the image in this news article, but it's clear the supposed English name is a creation of the creator. But that is a surmountable problem via page move. Once links to the Bergen Commuter Rail are fixed to the correct name I'm not opposed to deleting the redirect after. Jumpytoo Talk 03:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the trains that (mostly) run on the Voss Line have the Norwegian name of the line painted on them. They are also used between Bergen and Arna, and on low-demand departures between Bergen and Oslo. This does not mean that these routes together form some sort of commuter rail system, as the article implies. There also really isn't anything in this article worth saving at the moment:

The lead, as discussed, conflates the R 40 (Bergen–Voss–Myrdal) and L 4 (Bergen–Arna) routes. This is just wrong and arguably enough of a reason to delete the article.
§ Service is a combination of WP:NOT content (the exact schedules are variable and do not belong in an encyclopedia) and content that belongs in other articles. The information about the routes belongs at Rail transport in Norway § Passenger services, and possibly Bergen Line. The paragraph about financing belongs at Vy or Rail transport in Norway as, again, this is not a separate commuter rail system, but simply a conflation of two normal passenger services. The information about fare integration is first of all wrong, and also of questionable encyclopedic relevance; fare integration is the result of ad hoc agreements between the different providers and not managed by any common organization, and is thus subject to arbitrary changes.
§ Station list and § Future expansion are already at Bergen Line, as they should.

-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are surmountable problems that don't require deletion and can be fixed from just editing (ex. fixing the lead, change Service to be less of a timetable). But I'm also fine with moving then immediately redirecting to Bergen Line as an intern measure. I always prefer to retain the history if possible, as it makes a possible future article easier to create & allows for merging of any mergeable content Jumpytoo Talk 15:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if this page title should be a Redirect whether or not it moved to a current redirect Vossebanen
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Voss Line: which is the target of the Vossebanen redirect. I'm not sure I see the point in moving this page to a title that is Norwegian for "Voss Line". Owen× ☎ 21:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Chicago school shooting

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

Non-notable school shooting. Only follow-up coverage is WP:ROUTINE coverage of the trial (e.g. [1]) which is insufficient to demonstrate lasting notability. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Illinois. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no in-depth coverage or anything reflecting on consequences besides him getting sentenced. Just surface level legal stuff. A search turned up nothing helpful for notability. Gang-related shootings are less likely to be notable in my experience. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a WP:News article, lacks the coverage necessary to meet notability. Contrary to popular belief, not every discharge of a gun is notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dejan Crnomarković

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

Rejected draft. The included sources are of poor quality, and I couldn't find any others on Google. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Serbia, and Yugoslavia. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nb I just linked it to the sr-wiki page, which appears to have additional references (I haven't checked them). -- asilvering (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. I've worked on the article a bit. — Sadko (words are wind) 09:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Zivkagobelic (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A lot of work has gone into this article since its nomination, can we get a review here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Every single citation has Dejan Crnomarković as the author. Is this a misunderstanding of how citations are made? It looks like a delete anyway because the sources seem to be of low quality, WP:PRIMARY, WP:ROUTINE etc. Geschichte (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte I spot-checked two and would say this is a misunderstanding of how citations are made. -- asilvering (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, London

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. A protest outside the embassy does not contribute to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. The protest itself does not contribute to notability. Embassies are often locations of protests. LibStar (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London where all the encyclopaedic information is located already. There is no justification for deletion though, given that this is a plausible search term and we have relevant content. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London per Thryduulf. Definitely a plausible search term. मल्ल (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London. Suonii180 (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Aziz Abdullah Ali Al Suadi

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

This is one of many articles related to one person's (?) attempt to make an article on seemingly everyone who has ever been detained at Guantanamo. Cited entirely to reports listing him among the detainees with no sigcov discussion of the subject. An outside search found no sources except a brief mention that he was sent to Montenegro in 2016. Redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees where he is listed? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Yemen, and United States of America. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails notability as stated above and also this should be considered as falling under WP:BLPCRIME, as this is a person being held in prison without trial and is thus not convicted of whatever they are holding him for. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's kind of how... Guantanamo is. 9/11 and all that. Previous discussions on similar people have found to redirect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that others have been suggesting we ignore WP:BLPCRIME in such instances. I will continue to make my case that we shouldn't. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in any case, the list exists. If our stance on that list changes the redirect will go with it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as proposed. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 08:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees: per nom TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Michael Moses

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

Notability unclear from sources in article. The news articles containing him are articles written about stories he was involved in as matters of Catholic interest, but do not show that he himself is notable. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 20:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:RELPEOPLE. Also, there are enough WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. The article is net positively good, and I don't need to do a source search. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does it meet WP:RELPEOPLE? He is not a head of a major religion; he has not played an important role in a significant religious event that has itself received considerable coverage; has not made contributions to the philosophy of religion; and has not been recognized as an authoritative source on religious matters or writings. Neither is he a bishop or head of a large Protestant congregation. He is an associate pastor.

Most of the coverage including him does not point out or demonstrate his notability as a person. I myself am a Catholic priest who has been mentioned or featured in a few Catholic news articles, but I am in no way notable enough for a Wiki article. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 20:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Christianity, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see a WP:GNG pass (and WP:RELPEOPLE doesn't apply here). The closest I can get is two articles from Catholic News Agency (here, here), but we need multiple that are independent of the subject and each other, plus these aren't necessarily WP:SIGCOV of him. The rest of the sources are affiliated or unreliable blog-type sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:: Do we all agree to redirect to List of American Catholic priests per WP:ATD? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why it would be an appropriate redirect; no one who might be searching for him would be served by a redirection to an incomplete list that couldn't even include him. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 13:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also fail to see the value of redirection as suggested. There are tens of thousands of Catholic priests in the U.S. and only a small fraction of them are notable. Thus, per WP:CSC, the selection criterion for this list is Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia, and Moses would not qualify as not qualifying for a standalone article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV and not passing WP:MUSICBIO. None of the current sources (Catholic News agency reports) are independent of the Church, and I don’t see any secular reviews. If there was a review in either America or similar reliable religious media, that would go far to showing notability. I also don’t see any touring as a musician outside of Eastern Texas/Louisiana. Normally, I’d advocate for keeping or merging such articles - my record on AfD is pretty much on the inclusionist side of religious articles. However, I find myself agreeing with Dclemens1971 as to the lack of utility in a redirect to a larger list. If you find and better sources, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 21:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Sunder Sharan

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

Shyam Sunder Sharan

Politician who acts as a spokesperson for a political party in the state of Bihar, and does not satisfy political notability or general notability. The subject is not a member of a national or state legislature and so does not satisfy political notability. Review of the references shows that only the first of them is possibly significant coverage in an independent source. The others are a press release, and two statements issued by the subject as spokesperson for the party, so that they are not independent.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	news4nation.com	Report on meeting with national finance minister	Yes?	Yes	Yes?	Yes
2	www.insiderlive.in	Press release about his naming as spokesperson	No	Yes	Yes?	No
3	www.etvbharat.com	Appears to be a press release about upcoming election	No	Not about the subject, who is only acting as a spokesperson	Yes?	No
4	news4nation.com	An announcement by the subject about the election	No	Not about the subject, who is a spokesperson	Yes?	No

The originator created both a draft and an article, which were identical. The draft has been redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, the redirection of the draft to the article should be reverted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bihar. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not have significant coverage to meet WP:GNG even though they are elected as local official

Per this clause under Notability for politician and judges "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." Tesleemah (talk) 06:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 18:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boricua Party

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Source 1 is secretary of state basic/contact information, source 2 is a passing mention, source 3 is a passing mention, and source 4 is a single sentence story about how it qualified for ballot access. Most other sources that I've seen through a search are passing mentions. reppop^talk 18:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Any sources not published by the party itself just give passing mentions, barely more than a sentence - basically just WP:ORGTRIV, and not giving any indication of what the party's purpose or intentions are. Recon rabbit 18:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ which does not preclude a merger discussion. Star Mississippi 18:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TCDD DH44100

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

Tagged uncited for almost a decade and the Turkish article is also uncited. Despite the comment on the talk page I don’t see why this should be kept as I searched and it does not seem to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The German book is an excellent source on the MaK 600 D [de], probably the Mak 650 too. That may also be enough to support this article as well. But the point is that I don't have this book, I haven't read it, and at £40 for a German language book (my German is sketchy at best) then I'm unlikely to buy one. I'm sure it belongs here as a source, but I can't claim that it's sourcing the article content as things stand. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep As the Turkish article isn't unsourced (not 'uncited') and WP:NORUSH still applies, I find the deletion nomination unconvincing. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley Thanks for adding Roland (2011) to the English article. I see you left the uncited tag in place. Is that because you don’t consider either Roland or trainsofturkey to be reliable sources? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. I'm not certain if the class of locomotives is individually notable (equivalent UK classes normally are, so it's certainly plausible), but it is most likely that sources will be in Turkish, a language I don't speak. If it isn't individually notable then merging to a broader article (possibly something about Turkish shunting locos, but probably not the DB Class V 65 article suggested on the talk page, unless that article's scope is broadened) is the way forwards. I'm not seeing any reason for deletion, as it's an encyclopaedic component of a broader topic that is definitely notable. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a Turkish source then editors on trwiki have not yet found it as the only external link they have added is in English - that is http://www.trainsofturkey.com/pmwiki.php/Traction/DH44100 Chidgk1 (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a source isn't included in a given language edition's article is not a reliable indicator of whether the source does or does not exist. All Wikipedias are works in progress, and smaller language editions almost always more so than en.wp. We have no indication that any Turkish speaker has even looked for sources - the tr.wiki article hadn't been edited since 2020 until you tagged it as unsourced yesterday, it's never been nominated for deletion nor (as far as I can tell) has it ever been discussed at a noticeboard or similar. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this was to be merged, a better target than DB Class V 65 would be MaK 600 D [de] or MaK rod-coupled locomotives [de]. AFAIK, these Turkish examples were not versions of the German railway service V 65, but were both examples of a widespread commercial design, the MaK 600 / MaK 650. While sourcing, especially in English, is going to be a problem the broader scope article might be a better and more achievable goal. Creating a valid stub for MaK rod-coupled locomotives [de] wouldn't be too hard. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 18:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social Reconciliation Reform and Development Party

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

Yet another completely uncited article about a defunct Turkish political party. The Turkish article is also tagged uncited. By searching I can confirm that it existed, but I am not sure it is notable. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails Wikipedia:ORG. Lack of sources and Insufficient/zero political impact. - The9Man ^Talk 18:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public parks in Turkey

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

Tagged uncited for a long tims and there must be thousands of tiny parks in Turkish cities so a list would be too long. They tend to call a 10m x 10m playground a “park”. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if limited to notable parks and not playgrounds, local parks like these will be best listed in local articles like Ankara#Parks and Istanbul#Parks. This doesn't provide anything more than the Category:Parks in Turkey does. Reywas92^Talk 18:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Agree that a separate article is not needed. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced, orphan, and difficult to find sources. A list if major city parks in theory could be created. It’s almost a case of WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Manga (album) with the history preserved should someone want to merge. Star Mississippi 18:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manga

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

Now that Manga (album) has been cited do we still need this article which has been tagged uncited for years? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any added content and redirect to the main album article, there's really not much extra in this reissue so it's not really needed as a standalone article Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 21:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (no merge necessary) to Manga (album), where the existence of this reissue and its tracklist are already described. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Remedy Drive. Star Mississippi 18:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rip Open the Skies

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

No claim to notability, no WP:SIGCOV, does not satisfy WP:NMUSIC. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Remedy Drive: Not finding enough to meet WP:NALBUM. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Remedy Drive. Owen× ☎ 16:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy (The Blue One)

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

Non-notable, no WP:SIGCOV, does not satisfy WP:NMUSIC. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Remedy Drive per nomination. Lacks significant coverage and isn't notable, like the majority of the band's albums. Ss112 07:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Remedy Drive, Lacks significant coverage. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Sasson

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

Tagged for sourcing issues since 2019. Contains no independent sources with significant coverage. Not clear the subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will look into it but have company for several days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked now: Operissimo, Bayreuth: she sang at Metropolitan Opera (don't know yet what), at the Bayreuth Festival (one of the Parsifal flower maidens alongside her husband in the title role, also the six following years without him), and she wrote at least two musicals and made recordings: seems notable. I have no more time today. Her prime was 40 years ago which makes searching difficult. Anybody to find about a claimed Metropolitan Opera competition? It's not the famous one. - Please reduce the tag-bombing a bit, I don't have time even for that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No traces at Met Archive, the competition Metropolitan Opera National Council Auditions of the Air doesn't exist anymore. Grimes2 (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that she may not have appeared with the Met, but finalist in the "Auditions" looks supported by three reliable sources which all rely on GLS. Perhaps she was dropped from later editions of GSL as mainly a pop and musical singer then.

Thanks to Ipigott for the Bayreuth ref, I added the Online Merker which even has a birthday. The article is rewritten. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As she's covered in the Großes Sängerlexikon, she is considered notable.--Ipigott (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott I already checked the Großes Sängerlexikon. She does not have an entry. She is mentioned briefly in the entry on her husband, the tenor Peter Hoffmann, on page 2115 (see https://www.google.com/books/edition/Großes_Sängerlexikon/dsfq_5dFeL0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Sasson ) but otherwise has no coverage. It is not significant coverage as the text is one sentence long and is about their marriages (twice married, covers second marriage in 1983) and separation in 1990. It has nothing to say about her at all other than that. 4meter4 (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bayreuther Festspiele source which I have included as a reference in the article clearly identifies the 1999 edition of Sängerlexikon as a source. Not all editions are accessible online, especially for performers from the 1980s. Operissimo also draws on the same source.--Ipigott (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott It would be preferable to cite the GSL directly rather than use the festival website as a proxy. As her employer, the festival source is not independent, but the GSL would be. I'll assume in good faith that the festival website text is in that edition of the GSL, but normally articles built from theatre web pages that employ performers would not meet the standard of sourcing required at WP:SIGCOV because they lack sufficient independence. In my view, the article currently is cited too heavily to non-independent web materials (the majority of the article is verified to two non-independent websites) to meet GNG but as the Bayreuther Festspiele cited where it got its info I am willing to overlook it in this instance; particularly if we swap out the source for the print edition of the GSL. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Please check historic biographies on the Bayreuther Festspiele and you will find that they quote the GSL word for word (Example: Hermin Esser), and additionally supply the exact information about the performances, which link to the colleagues, conductors and directors. It is actually the better reference. Additionally: we can see it. Is that clear enough? - --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt It would be fine as an external link, but as the festival is Sasson's employer it shouldn't be used as a cited reference because the website is too closely connected to the subject and lacks independence. More importantly, that website is a copy-paste of a copyrighted work. It would be better to cite the original print edition of the GSL and attribute the scholars who wrote the information for ethical reasons. It's an attribution (see Wikipedia:Attribution policy) and copyright issue Gerda. We shouldn't be crediting the Bayreuth Festival but the academic researchers and their publication.4meter4 (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no time to argue. Have you seen the Online Merker entry for her birthday, 2023, not an employer, also quoting the GLS, just an earlier version that we can't see? - The festival is not presenting some promotional stuff about their singers, but quote from the given source. That makes a difference for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 4meter4, for your understanding. I agree that it would be preferable to refer to the 1999 print version of GSL but this would no doubt require the assistance of a librarian or archivist to provide page numbers, etc., and would require considerable time and effort. I have always considered the Bayreuther Festspiele site as a reliable source, in particular for identifying the roles played by the various performers. In my experience, it has been widely used in the biographies of opera singers in order to identify their roles and performances. Until now I have not seen it dismissed as a mere "employer". Would you consider information from opera houses such as Covent Garden or the Met as employers too? If so, many of our sopranos' biographies may well not deserve inclusion in the English version of Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott This is complex issue. Theaters do pay their artists, and they promote them to generate ticket sales. They are indeed non-independent sources of information, and they have a financial conflict of interest. In my opinion its irresponsible (and lazy) article writing to use these materials anywhere but in an external link. Additionally, theater websites often re-publish artist bios written by the subject or by their paid talent management, meaning artist bio pages on theatre websites are also non-independent sources that can not be used to establish notability. Performance archives such as (https://archives.metopera.org/MetOperaSearch/) are WP:PRIMARY sources, and can be used per WP:VERIFIABILITY but they don't meet the standard of sourcing required at WP:SIGCOV which requires the use of WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY sources. In general, much of the content found in performance bios and archives can be verified elsewhere in better materials by digging up media reviews of opera performances with attributed authors in newspapers or specialty publications like Opera, Opera Wire, or Opera News, and these are the kind of independent sources needed to meet WP:GNG. Obviously, even better is having a source like the GSL or Grove Music Online, or an academic journal article or a book of some kind with significant coverage. If a singer hasn't had any independent media coverage of their performance, and the content is only verifiable to a theater website, they are indeed not notable. Most opera productions get reviewed so if one is having trouble finding reviews in newspaper archives it is highly probable should be deleted.4meter4 (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott I don't think it would be necessary to worry about digging up the original 1999 SGL edition. I think we are all confident enough that Bayreuth is accurately representing the source that I think we could simply cite the book's entry without giving a specific page number. Anybody with a physical copy of the 1999 edition of the book would easily be able to locate that entry by citing the chapter "Sasson, Deborah". We can then move the Bayreuth bio to the external links so it is still visible to readers.4meter4 (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I brought back Bayreuth for the two reasons mentioned above: a) it is online, b) it has the performance dates and people, a convenience for readers interested in that James Levine conducted that Parsifal, and who was Parsifal in subsequent performances. I doubt that they would find it in the external links. Thanks to Grimes2 for finding more references. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, I moved it back to the external links because the content being verified can be found directly in the text by Riemens and Kutsch, and its misleading/dishonest to essentially cite the same source twice but under different names. It infers there are two different sources; which is not true. Additionally, readers can easily access the source in the external links. There isn't an access issue here, and readers can find it easily.4meter4 (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing per WP:HEY. The sourcing issues have largely been addressed. I think we can close this out as meeting WP:GNG. Good work Gerda and Ipigott.4meter4 (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adelsberg (hill)

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

No refs on the page for many years, nothing much on de.wiki could be added to improve the page to meet the standards here. Not seeing much else JMWt (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Germany. JMWt (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This user mass-produced tens of thousands of junk one-liners like this. Reywas92^Talk 16:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above. TH1980 (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Marvel Comics characters: C. Star Mississippi 15:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Cortez

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

Not one secondary source cited, Google search returns one listicle-no popular coverage. Does not appear to be notable. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: C in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the sources that were added to expand the article today, otherwise merge as per above. BOZ (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge - The added sources are all either Valnet sites or trivial mentions. Not enough to really pass the WP:GNG, but its a valid search term. Either the above suggested character list or List of X-Men enemies#Other recurring antagonists would be suitable targets, so whichever one is preferred is fine. Rorshacma (talk) 04:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The consensus is that the sources do not establish notability for this article subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Varga

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

Diplomats are not inherently notable, they must meet GNG and I don't see that happening in this case. Fwiw, they don’t even have a BLP on their local language Slovak Wikipedia, — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and Slovakia. feminist🩸 (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Varga has never been elected to any public office nor has he even been a member of any Slovak political party. The term "Marek Varga" on Google may find other men with the same name instead of this diplomat, failing WP:V too. In its current state, the article is written like a WP:PROMO and does not contain anything about what Varga accomplished to prove that he deserves a Wikipedia article. By the way, what is "FWIW"? Is there any ambassador or diplomat who actually meet WP:GNG? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Clariniie, "For what it's worth." — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Show the guidelines that state that one must have been elected to a public office or holds a membership of a political party before they qualify for a Wikipedia article in their name. And be instructed that WP:PROMO is never a criteria for bringing an article to AFD as it can easily be deleted via CSD G11 but that is not the case here. Piscili (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it passes WP:GNG. WP:Before was not performed before nominating this to AFD for the reason that diplomats are not inherently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The subject is not just a career diplomat but his country's permanent representative to NATO speaking on behalf of the entire country. The sources in the article provide WP:SIGCOV and those are enough to pass. Piscili (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Piscili, I’ve done WP:BEFORE. As the article creator, it’s expected that you’d vote to keep it, but you need to provide strong reasoning for its WP:N. Being the country’s permanent representative to NATO doesn’t automatically make someone notable. So, when you claim the subject passes GNG, you must provide proof. Simply stating that coverage exists isn’t sufficient. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First 3 sources are primary. The 5th is a 1 line mention. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. This one fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 10:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 10:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No non-primary SIGCOV, notability has not been demonstrated. Ark Hyena (it/its) 19:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Konecký

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

Diplomats are not inherently notable, they must meet GNG and I don't see that happening in this case. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and Czech Republic. feminist🩸 (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Konecký has never been elected to any public office nor has he even been a member of any Czech political party. In its current state, the article is written like a WP:PROMO and does not contain anything about what Konecký accomplished to prove that he deserves a Wikipedia article. Corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia likewise only provides announcement news, nothing to indicate significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Show the guidelines that state that one must have been elected to a public office or holds a membership of a political party before they qualify for a Wikipedia article in their name. And be instructed that WP:PROMO is never a criteria for bringing an article to AFD as it can easily be deleted via CSD G11 but that is not the case here. Piscili (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it passes WP:GNG per all the sources in the article. The subject is not just a career diplomat but a permanent reprehensive of an entire country to NATO and speaks on behalf of the country. Before this appointment he served as Political Director of the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There is sufficient coverage that easily pass all requirements. Piscili (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Piscili, As the article creator, it’s expected that you’d vote to keep it, but you need to provide strong reasoning for its WP:N. Being the country’s permanent representative to NATO or even Political Director of the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affair doesn’t automatically make someone notable. So, when you claim the subject passes GNG, you must provide proof. Simply stating that coverage exists isn’t sufficient. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Other than the primary mentions, no notability with SIGCOV found anywhere. Keep !votes do not mention any so called "sources that exist". The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Neculăescu

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

Diplomats are not inherently notable, they must meet GNG and I don't see that happening in this case. They don’t even have a BLP on their local language Romanian Wikipedia, yet most of the cited coverage is in that language. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and Romania. feminist🩸 (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it passes WP:GNG. The nominator did not perform WP:Before before nominating this to AFD for the reason that diplomats are not inherently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The subject is not just a career diplomat but his country's permanent representative to NATO speaking on behalf of the entire country and had held various political appointments before appointed to NATO. The sources in the article provide WP:SIGCOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piscili (talk • contribs) 14:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Piscili, I’ve done WP:BEFORE. As the article creator, it’s expected that you’d vote to keep it, but you need to provide strong reasoning for its WP:N. Being the country’s permanent representative to NATO doesn’t automatically make someone notable. So, when you claim the subject passes GNG, you must provide proof. Simply stating that coverage exists isn’t sufficient. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: assumed notable positions, contributed to MFA at intl. level [2]. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- TheBirdsShedTears, Just holding the office of Permanent Representative of Romania to NATO does not inherently confer WP:N. It's achieving GNG that counts. If this position truly made someone WP:N, we would have seen BLPs for former Permanent Representatives of Romania to NATO as well. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bastard Fairies

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

This band doesn't appear to be notable. There's an AllMusic biography and an AllMusic review of their only album. Most of the sources used in the article don't even mention the band, and PlugInMusic doesn't seem to be a reliable source. toweli (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd vote "keep" for the band name alone, but alas it's definitely a Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC with no notable discography, awards or label work. And for being about a rock band, there's nothing about their music in the article, instead focusing on a documentary film and some meaningless YouTube video, not to mention being full of useless fluff and terrible sourcing. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Along with the Allmusic citations above, there is sigcov available on TWL. This includes a full page article in the Native Peoples Magazine,^[1] a 1300 word article in Morning Call,^[2] and a CD review of Momento Mori from the Calgary Herald.^[3]. That's more than WP:THREE thus meets WP:GNG. ResonantDis_tortion 17:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Poet, J (2008). "Keeping it Real: The Bastard Fairies". Native Peoples Magazine. 21: 64.
^ Chow, Greg (2007). "Bastards of new media ** By breaking away from major labels and dominating online, the DIY Fairies become the music industry's worst nightmare". Morning Call.
^ McCoy, Heath (9 May 2007). "The Bastard Fairies - Momento Mori". Calgary Herald.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 00:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orontes I Sakavakyats

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

The IP at User talk:2402:7500:5ED:1187:1DCD:F9F5:3045:C938 mentioned that this article refers to Orontes I, and they are the same person. However though, I am in doubt about this. Previously, I reverted the IP's edits to this article because it seemed like blanking, and through their talk page and the talk page of this article they tried saying that they are the same person, but I am still unsure. Could other editors' give their thoughts on this? Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 14:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Royalty and nobility. Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 14:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Near-exact copy of Tigranes (legendary), rewritten in December 2021 by HistoryofIran, who probably knows what's going on better than anyone else. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're not the same person as far as I recall. Also, that IP is possibly WP:LTA/ARARAT. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am 100% sure that is WP:LTA/ARARAT. They've been active recently, not only here but also at Wikidata, through IPs geolocated in the US. Even though this IP is geolocated in Taiwan (which is pretty random), their editing patterns are the same. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran So this can be closed as keep? If you are certain then I can withdraw this deletion request. Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 00:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus, among participants, to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Aleeha

AfDs for this article:

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

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

The subject of this BLP may have directed a few Pakistani films, but he clearly does not meet the basic GNG or WP:SIGCOV. According to WP:BIO's additional criteria, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've added Find Sources links for his other name above. Maybe that helps? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. It seems that this was on my watchlist due to a previous version that got deleted. I don't remember that at all so I'm looking at this as if I was seeing the subject's name(s) for the first time. There is some notability here but I'm not sure whether it is enough. The Google News hits show multiple sources talking about his movies and, to some extent, about him. His films exist and they get reviewed, sometimes quite poorly, so it is not just puffery. I can't easily tell which sources are Reliable though. There has been controversy about one of the films which may even have been banned to some extent. Based on the English language hits I'm very much on the fence. It's not an obvious delete but I don't see enough to say keep either. I Google translated the Urdu version of the article to see if there was anything there that was helpful but it doesn't say much of anything and none of the sources there look any better than the ones here. If an Urdu speaker was to search for better sources then they might or might not find something that pushes this over the line to a keep. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A clear WP:DIRECTOR and WP:CREATIVE pass with multiple films written and directed, that received significant critical coverage- -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, Additional criteria also states meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.— Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Even meeting GNG does not. The wording is made to imply that it can be agreed upon per community consensus, Which is why AfDs exist. You have a director, he meets WPDIRECTOR, the applicable guideline, it can therefore be agreed upon the article can be retained. Those who don’t agree are free to express their views but meeting the requirements of any SNG is quite a solid argument to retain any page.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.--Gul Butt (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it fell below WP:NDIRECTOR or WP:NCREATIVE it passes WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC based on the sources in the article. Piscili (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Piscili, One keep vote states that this meets NDIRECTOR/NCREATIVE, while your vote suggests it may not meet NDIRECTOR/NCREATIVE but does meet GNG. Why don't you take some time to demonstrate how the subject meets GNG. Also please steer clear of name-checking or routine coverage in your explanation. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage in reliable news sources [3] [4] [5] which makes him pass WP:GNG and directed many films including controversial Javed Iqbal: The Untold Story of A Serial Killer. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]
- This coverage is not sufficient as you claim. The coverage is primarily based on interviews and doesn’t discuss the subject in detail. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep There is important coverage. There is an article from the Dawn News. There is also coverage, for example, from The Express Tribune. He seems like an outstanding actor. --181.197.42.215 (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

- It seems to me that someone might have instructed this IP to just vote keep on this AfD. They provided vague responses, claiming that coverage exists while also stating that the subject is a "outstanding actor," even though they aren’t actually an actor. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see how it passes WP:GNG Wikibear47 (talk) 07:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Wikibear47 Maybe the article is missing WP:GNG but it happens with WP:DIRECTOR. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)~~ [reply]

So just because someone is a director all of a sudden they become notable and should have an article on Wikipedia. Wikibear47 (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP, Directors are generally presumed notable if they've directed a few TV shoes/films, but they still need to meet the GNG, which, as you admit, is not the case here. And like the Additional criteria state that meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Therefore, I don’t think we should keep this BLP based solely on the fact that they are a director. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikibear47 never famous, it is that if comply with WP:DIRECTOR it can be a fundamental requirement in your permanence see Crooks & Nannies if you meet WP:SINGER does not necessarily have to comply WP:GNG can be maintained, I suggest you read WP:DIRECTOR carefully. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Comment: Directors are generally presumed notable if they've directed a few TV shoes/films, but they still need to meet the GNG is an erroneous (albeit common) interpretation of what the guideline says. Meeting the specific requirement can be considered sufficient, per consensus; in other words, no, they don't need to also meet GNG; I also would like to note that the same quotation (that certainly cannot be interpreted as something like "Pages meeting WP:DIRECTOR but not GNG should be deleted") from the Additional criteria section of the page about the notability of people (being present in the nomination and repeated twice during this discussion) has been replied to above and that it is perhaps not totally useful to copy it anymore. Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Taxali Gate film was reviewed, specifically commenting on this person's craft and technical decisions. They've released more than one film, should be able to meet notability for film directors. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some controversy around this person's work [6]. I suspect there would be more in the native language press. Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Dawn and Express Tribune sources are enough for the subject to pass WP:GNG. In my opinion, the subject also passes WP:DIRECTOR, especially when it comes to the third criterion. DesiMoore (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Keep per DesiMoore TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Feel free to renominate in three months. Owen× ☎ 16:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tuirial Hydro Electric Project

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

Should delete due to a lack of significant coverage and reliable sources, which could indicate that it does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Additionally, if the content is deemed to be too promotional or lacking in verifiable information Jiaoriballisse (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable for an article as it passes WP:GNG. It is clear that WP:BEFORE was not conducted before putting up this article for deletion. Sources are available[7][8][9][10]. Piscili (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although I am pretty much meh regarding the state of the article. It is not promotional, but it is not really anything at all! Not a huge facility, but it exists and the size (60MW) is large enough to attract notice. It has coverage in some sources as above, it is a visible feature in the locality. Needs improvement, not deletion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 2 sources on the page. One is a permanent deadlink and the other does not even have a passing mention. So there are no sources, no secondary independent sources, no significant coverage. This page fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. If sources exist with significant coverage in secondary independent sources that is not just an entry or passing mention or trivia news, I would reconsider my vote. This project is owned by North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited per source so why need to have separate page. If reliable secondary sources exist, some of the content can be Merged to the owner company but the other problem is that the owner company has 2 sources with deadlinks. So no sources there either and owner company can be AFDed too. I am going to have stay on delete. RangersRus (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NBUILD, this is infrastructure, and so it needs to meet GNG not NCORP. If it were under NCORP, I'd agree it should go. But also, if going by the project owner, that would be a case for a redirect I think. NBUILD suggests a redirect is normal for non notable infrastructure. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But redirect to owner company North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited that has no sources, would not be right. If owner company had significant coverage and secondary independent reliable sources to pass WP:NCORP, I would gave reconsidered redirect to it. RangersRus (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D Fuse

AfDs for this article:

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

only reference is a searchpage. major contributing editor has dfuse in username (COI). little on google, sigcov/notability issues Canary757 (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Canary757 (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add this manually yesterday but something went wrong half way through so I used twinkle today. I wanted to clarify why it might say 2nd nomination. (beginner error-sorry) Canary757 (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there's a bicycle [11] that isn't this... I find this, but I don't know if it's the same individual [12]... Is D colon Fuse the same person as D space Fuse? Regardless, we don't have enough sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, having a single source which is a search result and so difficulty to find sources to support it, it is destined for deletion at this time after spending so many years here in breach of all prerequisites. Piscili (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is full of puffery and needs a major rewrite. However I have identified non-trivial coverage including an Allmusic staff bio (which is an WP:RSMUSIC, and is always a good sign) and ~~three~~ four album reviews in independent sources. These citations have been added to the article. I will look for further sourcing, but this is currently tending towards meeting WP:MUSICBIO#1. ResonantDis_tortion 19:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Weak Keep I think it may pass GNG if Allmusic staff bio and four reviews are really non-trivial and good. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have now identified and added a total of 14 new citations to this article, much with sig-coverage from a wide variety of independent sources. This includes verified charting per WP:GOODCHARTS, therefore the subject also meets WP:MUSICBIO#2. I have also toned down much of the puffery. ResonantDis_tortion 17:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As I can see the subject has an article with modest depth from Washington post written 22 years ago. Having it on a hand with the other sources, it should be enough to pass WP:GNG. The unsourced materials from the article should be removed.Instant History (talk) 04:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parameter (physics)

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

Page which is an extended dictionary definition. The only source is a GitHub site of the page creator which I don't think qualifies as an RS. In any case WP:NOTADICTIONARY applies. The page was draftified on Oct 12 by BoyTheKingCanDance then moved almost immediately by the original editor MKovachev to main with this single source added. I was tempted to PROD, but am just doing an AfD which I think is more appropriate for a novice editor who is learning the ropes.. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there was no adequate page about the topic before, I argue that this one should remain. Yes, it is a self-citation because otherwise the page gets flagged as having no sources. I doubt you need a research paper about what a physical parameter is in order to cite something. MKovachev (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't have to be a research paper, but you do need something, and a GitHub page is not going to be good enough. XOR'easter (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because as it stands, the article doesn't go beyond a dictionary definition and refers to no useful sources. It's conceivable that an article could maybe be written about the assignment of parameters to a physical system, but I fear the current article doesn't contain any material likely to be of use to a future editor, and isn't a starting-point for that hypothetical article; it'd be better to start over. Elemimele (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as argued above. This is a dictionary definition that doesn't provide anything resembling a good beginning for an encyclopedia article. XOR'easter (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree that this is a dictionary definition, but this is also original research, because it implies that a parameter is entirely subjective. That might be true - I don’t know - but we have never published original research. Arguing that something has never had a page on Wikipedia, and then posting your own single source, is original research. Bearian (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohiuddin Ahmed (diplomat)

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

This bio was primarily written by J1477 (talk · contribs), who has a COI with this person, even if they won’t easily admit it. The editor has been promoting Laura Mohiuddin, daughter of Mohiuddin Ahmed, since they joined Wikipedia. I reviewed the sources cited in this bio and found that most are either primary, like government websites, or based on columns and interviews. Given that Laura is an SEO expert according to her LinkedIn profile as well a freelance journalist, I wouldn’t be surprised if she sought paid press coverage for her father to secure a WP bio. Diplomats aren’t inherently notable, and this one is no exception; they need to meet GNG, which clearly isn’t the case here. The BLP reads like promotional and contains WP:OR. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and Pakistan. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG being "a second secretary" is far from being a senior enough diplomat to merit any sort of automatic inclusion. And the sources are quite inadequate for GNG. Edwardx (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI generated Keep comment by J1477 (talk · contribs)

Keep Mohiuddin Ahmed’s notability extends far beyond his role as a "second secretary." He made significant contributions during and after the Bangladesh Liberation War, establishing himself as a freedom fighter, senior diplomat, and key figure in the country's development.

1. Crucial Role in the Bangladesh Liberation War: Mohiuddin Ahmed was the first Bengali diplomat in Europe to publicly declare his allegiance to the provisional government of Bangladesh. His defection at Trafalgar Square in August 1971, during the "Stop Genocide: Recognise Bangladesh" rally, was a pivotal moment in mobilizing international support for the Liberation War. This act also encouraged other Bengali diplomats to follow suit, a crucial step in building the international recognition Bangladesh needed during its struggle for independence.^[1]^[2]^[3]

2. Post-War Diplomatic Career: After the war, Ahmed continued to serve Bangladesh in several significant roles, including as Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Principal of the Foreign Service Academy. His postings in New York, Geneva, Jakarta, and Jeddah allowed him to represent Bangladesh in important global forums, further strengthening the country’s international standing.^[4]

3. Contributions as a Public Intellectual: Besides his diplomatic career, Mohiuddin Ahmed was a prominent intellectual figure in Bangladesh. He wrote over 1,500 columns on topics such as economic development and foreign policy. ^[5]

4. Recognition of His Legacy: His contributions have been widely recognized by government officials, colleagues, and the media. His involvement in the Trafalgar Square rally, his senior diplomatic postings make him an essential figure in both Bangladesh’s history and its intellectual landscape.^[6]

5. Service as an Ambassador: Mohiuddin Ahmed also served as an ambassador for Bangladesh, holding various senior diplomatic posts across key global locations such as New York, Geneva, Jakarta, and Jeddah. His ambassadorial roles reinforced Bangladesh's international relationships and bolstered its position on the global stage. His leadership extended to critical discussions at the United Nations and other international forums, where he advocated for Bangladesh’s interests in a rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape.^[7]^[8]

6. Leadership in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: In addition to his ambassadorial roles, Ahmed played a significant part in Bangladesh's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where he rose to the position of Secretary. His role as Principal of the Foreign Service Academy further highlights his contributions to training and guiding the next generation of Bangladeshi diplomats, ensuring a lasting legacy within the country’s diplomatic service.^[9]

7. Honors and Tributes: Mohiuddin Ahmed's contributions have been widely recognized by leading figures, including Foreign Minister AK Abdul Momen, who described him as a "patriot and courageous diplomat." His critical involvement during Bangladesh's formative years in the international arena is reflected in the widespread mourning of his passing, further underscoring his notability.^[10]

Given these significant contributions during the Liberation War, his diplomatic achievements, and his work as a public intellectual, Mohiuddin Ahmed meets Wikipedia’s General Notability Guidelines (GNG). His legacy has left a deep impact on Bangladesh’s diplomatic and intellectual history, meriting his inclusion in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J1477 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user has a transparent conflict of interest in relation to this subject and their vote should be disregarded (see relevant discussion at COIN, here [13]) Axad12 (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J1477, I think you have been cautioned previously by me and others to avoid such long AI-generated statements. Anyhow, I’m still not convinced by your keep argument and the sources you cited are not enough to establish the GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the post shows up as 100% AI generated at gptzero.me. Another reason (apart from the COI) for it to be struck from the record as AI generators don't get a vote at AfD. Fortunately for Wikipedia (and humanity generally) only humans are allowed to vote. Axad12 (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Saqib and Edwardx. Axad12 (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment - I've blocked J1477 due to unresolved COI concerns that they were further aggravating by engaging in canvassing around this AfD. However, I do think that the bibliography that they have suggested be considered here does merit a more thorough response from editors advocating deletion, as it includes several obituaries and other articles with biographical information published in major Bangladesh newspapers, all in English, which suggests that additional coverage may exist in Bengali as well. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, I thought the main issue here was notability rather than verifiability. However, regarding canvassing / forum shopping, is it correct that the user gets blocked for that activity but that the canvassing etc posts on relatively high traffic forums get to remain in place?

It surprises me that a COI/promo user can attempt to recruit large numbers of uninvolved users to do their bidding, who will then continue the user's COI/promo work by proxy after the user has been blocked if the relevant posts are not deleted. Axad12 (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty typical for such posts to be clerked away by other editors, which is what I was expecting to happen. Either way, I doubt anyone will be effectively canvassed through the remaining posts now that J1477 has been blocked, especially given that Saqib has also placed disclaimer comments following the canvass comments. The block was primarily because it seemed like this pattern of disruption was likely to continue and escalate. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not have significant coverage to meet WP:GNG and they fail the politician notability guidelines, too

Tesleemah (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Agreed per nom. Wikibear47 (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: References are looking same PRs.--Gul Butt (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Mohiuddin Ahmed: That spirit of Trafalgar Square". Dhaka Tribune.
^ bdnews24.com. "Mohiuddin Ahmed, first diplomat in Europe to pledge allegiance to Bangladesh in 1971, dies aged 80". Mohiuddin Ahmed, first diplomat in Europe to pledge allegiance to Bangladesh in 1971, dies aged 80. Retrieved 2024-10-16.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ "Ex-Secretary Mohiuddin Ahmed no more". The Business Standard.
^ "Eminent diplomat Mohiuddin Ahmed dies". New Age.
^ "Remembering our freedom-fighter diplomats". The Financial Express. Retrieved 2024-10-16.
^ "Ex-secretary Mohiuddin Ahmed dies". Dhaka Tribune.
^ "Eminent diplomat Mohiuddin Ahmed passes away". BSS News. Retrieved 2024-10-16.
^ "Eminent diplomat Mohiuddin Ahmed passes away". Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
^ "Ex-Secretary Mohiuddin Ahmed no more". The Business Standard.
^ "Eminent diplomat Mohiuddin Ahmed passes away". BSS News. Retrieved 2024-10-16.

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 13:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Boďa

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

Despite playing for a professional level, I can't find enough significant coverage of this Slovak men's footballer to meet WP:GNG. In terms of reliable secondary sources, SME looks decent but GNG requires multiple in-depth coverage, while SP21 heavily relies on quotes without independent analysis. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meer Abdul Wahid Bilgrami

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

Not a notable person. The article shows zero evidence of notability. Sayful Islam (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sayful Islam (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Nominator was blocked as a sock, and no valid rationale for deletion was presented (since the article appears to be decently sourced). CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No good reason for deletion was given, Bilgrami has authored at least one notable work, and I don't see anything wrong with the sources. Badbluebus (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject is notable. He is the author of Haqaiq-e-Hindi and other notable books. The nominator should read the guidelines first. TheChronikler7 (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masato Ishida

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

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, with no significant and independent coverage (including in the ja:wiki), and 18 games in Japan's second league being his claim to notability. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenji Moriyama

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

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, with no significant and independent coverage (including in the ja:wiki), and 24 games during a single season of Japan’s third league being his claim to notability. Geschichte (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Osamu Miura

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

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, with no significant and independent coverage (including in the ja:wiki), and 25 games in Japan's second league being his claim to notability. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamila Musayeva

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

The sources cited in the article do not meet WP:SIGCOV. They include blogs, Medium posts, interviews, and primarily passing mentions. The article from The Caspian Post appears promotional or sponsored to me, and we also lack consensus on its reliability. Even if we ignore that, a single article cannot establish notability for the subject. I searched for more reliable sources with significant coverage but was unable to find any, only passing mentions similar to what is already in the article. The subject also fails to meet WP:AUTHOR, as their books have not been reviewed by multiple reliable sources. GrabUp - Talk 09:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, and Azerbaijan. GrabUp - Talk 09:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m an author of this article. I’m willing to respond to every argument.

Before publishing the article, I have read WP:AUTHOR (Wikipedia’s Notability Guideline, section "Creative professionals"). According to this section, a person is notable if "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". My article meets this criterion, because of following reasons: (1) First of all, Musayeva is interviewed and/or cited as an expert by the mainstream media mentioned in the article (Bussiness Insider, Newsweek, Fox News and others). This means that these big media companies recognize her position as an authority on the subject. (2) Secondly, she is a YouTuber with over million of subscribers and over 40 million views of her videos, which are big numbers, especially given the fact that etiquette is not a common interest. This establishes her as one of the most popular/successful etiquette experts in the world. Isn’t that enough to claim she is notable?

(3) Moreover, the article is about her, not about her books.

I have used multiple secondary and independent sources, mostly interviews with her (which is understandable, because the interviews with a creative person are often the most fruitful source about their lives and achievements). Half of the sources are mainstream media outlets such as Fox News, Daily Mail and WFLA-TV.

I didn’t include any self-published source.

I have used two sources published by the subject of the article, which is permitted. There is no doubt to the authenticy of these sources, as they were published on the official page of the subject of the article. Moreover, the article is not based primarily on such sources (there are only two).

I tried my best to meet the Wikipedia's Guidelines.

I will be taking care of the article. She is getting more and more recognition from the media every year. There will be more sources coming in the near future. I will be updating the article and bettering it. But please don't delete my work. Mlody1312 (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlody1312: If you want to work on this article, draftification can be done. However, interviews, sources claiming the subject as an expert, and view numbers alone do not make the subject notable. What’s your opinion on draftification? Please let me know. GrabUp - Talk 09:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked on this article for almost two weeks in my draftspace and for now there is no more information that can be added to the article. I tried my best to make the article as informative as it was possible, in order to give the readers a full understanding of who the described person is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals

According to the Wikipedia's Notability (People) Guideline, Jamila falls into the section/category of "Creative professionals". This particular section "applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals" (exact quote).

She belongs to this category, because she is not only an author of books, but also a videoblogger/a YouTuber.

In the next passage the criteria of notability are listed, and it says that the person is notable when "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" (exact quote).

The subject of the article meets this criteria. She is regarded as an important figure, i.e. an authority on etiquette. She is cited by multiple media outlets and invited to television. She gets media coverage for what she does professionally.

Moving on to the next point, of course view numbers on YouTube is not the only thing contributing to her notability, but is definitely an important one. There is a whole category in Wikipedia dedicated to YouTubers. I think having over 1 million subscribers and over 40 million views is big enough to be included into "YouTubers" category. There are subjects that have smaller numbers and still are included. Examples are: James Frederick, Matt Baume or RinRin Doll.

I feel like my article is criticised quite harshly, especially in comparison to other articles from similar categories. For example:

• Thomas_Farley (manners expert) (almost no linking to sources)

• Mary Killen (small number of sources)

• John Morgan (etiquette expert) (small number of sources)

• Judith Martin (here we have some interviews with the subject used as sources as well, and it seems like it doesn’t bother anyone; interviews with the subjects are really fruitful sources of information about such individuals)

Your statement about "primarily passing mentions" is not wholly fair, it diminishes her media presence to some extent. In the sources I gave she is asked for her opinions and suggestions as an expert and is cited as such. Most of these sources are full-talk interviews, and in others, her answers take up much of the space.

As she is getting more media recognition every month, more media coverage is coming in anytime soon. I will be happy to expand and improve this article. Please don’t delete my work. Mlody1312 (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, ‘As she is getting more media recognition every month, more media coverage is likely to come soon. I will be happy to expand and improve this article. Please don’t delete my work.’ That’s why I proposed draftification. If significant coverage comes in the future, then it can be submitted for AfC review. Currently, I don’t believe the article meets notability. The additional criteria you’re quoting do not inherently make a subject notable, as it says: ‘People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.’ GrabUp - Talk 15:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlody1312: Also, please avoid WP:WHATABOUT arguments. If you believe those articles do not meet notability guidelines, you can start a discussion. GrabUp - Talk 15:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for using WP:WHATABOUT arguments. I stand my ground when it comes to other arguments, included those on notability. I already gave my reasons and arguments for keeping this article, and I guess that’s all I could do. Maybe let’s wait for other users to join the discussion. Mlody1312 (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above indicates TOOSOON. Not notable at this time. Oaktree b (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't find any book reviews, so likely doesn't pass AUTHOR. The sources used are either red as non-RS or orange (iffy) per Source Highlighter. My search only brings up where to buy the book and primary sources. I don't see anything we can use to prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are reader reviews on goodreads and amazon. But anyway, this article is not about her books. The books are just one of many elements that make up the whole article. If I were going to write an article about any of her books, then requiring more reviews would be justified. Mlody1312 (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User ratings mean nothing to us. If you can find two or more critical reviews of any of her books from reliable secondary sources, she will meet the criteria for WP:AUTHOR. GrabUp - Talk 07:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources used are not the best, especially LinkedIn. If a profile was done that wasn't just the interview, it could meet notability, but I don't think it meets it in the current state. As the author of this page has said, she is getting more media attention as the months pass, so at some point, she will have a New Yorker or some other news/magazine profile done. When that happens, the page could come back up (with the removal of not great sources and an overall better flow). Bpuddin (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#LinkedIn

In accordance with this section of the guideline, using LinkedIn is permitted "as self-published, primary sources, but only if they can be authenticated as belonging to the subject", which they are in case of my article. Mlody1312 (talk) 07:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published and primary sources do not help establish notability at all. GrabUp - Talk 07:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability, in this case, is established by the fact that mainstream media outlets recognize her position as an authority on the topic of etiquette; she is interviewed and cited as an expert; she gets media coverage for what she does professionally.

LinkedIn can be used "As a reliable source sometimes. LinkedIn pages may be used as self-published, primary sources, but only if they can be authenticated as belonging to the subject." (exact quote)

They are proven authentic, because they were posted on the offical page of the subject. Mlody1312 (talk) 07:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Perennial website page also states for LinkedIn, "Common Issues - Wikipedia is not a directory of any subject's complete web presence, and links to social networking sites (other than official links) are discouraged...As a reliable source, LinkedIn is problematic in the same ways as MySpace, Facebook, etc. as self-published and unverifiable, unreliable content."

The overall problem I find with the page is the use of not reliable sources that are just conversations with Ms. Musayeva or are her own websites. Like LinkendIn, the Authority Magazine interview, the Wonder Woman Mag interview, Melissa Ambrosini interview, The British Protocol Academy source, Unconventional Life - Podcast, the Caspian Post article, the MITH Q&A, I AM CEO Podcast, Mail Online, and jamilamusayeva.com are all not fact checked or sourced articles, which is the overwhelming majority of this page.

I still believe the page should be deleted and can be republished if there are better sourced news articles/profiles done.

- Bpuddin (talk) 08:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The creator has canvassed 15 editors asking for help. Their message to me, at least, was neutral and transparent and I don't think they could have assumed that I would !vote keep, so I haven't recused myself. My gut feel is that the subject of the article is determined to raise their profile, hence appearing as a guest on several podcasts cited in the article. Given this new editor is an WP:SPA I am going to assume that this is an undeclared paid piece. I have expanded about half of the references in the article to tag which ones are interviews as part of my review of their content. I have not come across any content in those references that indicates notability. Everything I've read or heard are interviews, or her expressing her opinions, rather than WP:INDEPTH, WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SECONDARY coverage by WP:RELIABLE sources about her. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but these accusations are ridiculous. I have a Wikipedia account since 2019. I never created any article before because I had no need to. I'm just an appreciator of Ms. Musayeva's work, one of her viewers, and that's why I wanted to create an article about her. Mlody1312 (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mlody1312 I'm, puzzled: what led you to create an account on 24 November 2019 (as I see you did) but then not to make any edits at all until this month? PamD 12:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said, I had no need to. Why does it bother you so much? Mlody1312 (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't understand why anyone would trouble to create an account unless they intended to start editing there and then: you "had no need" to create the account. PamD 16:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, it wasn't a trouble. Mlody1312 (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Mlody1312 What source do you have for her date of birth? It may be in one of the many references, but please save me the time of reading through them all by adding a reference to show that it is available in a reliable independent published source. Thanks. PamD 12:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She has made posts related to her birthday on Instagram.

Not every biographical article has a reference to a birth date, even though the birth date is known. And since it is known, I don't see why not to add this information. Mlody1312 (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I've removed the birth date but replaced it with an approximate one from the statement that she was 31 in the Mekhdi ref. "It is known" is not an adequate source. PamD 16:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, you have changed the correct information to the incorrect one. I've told you my source, it's her Instagram. Literally 10 seconds of searching in Google:

https://www.instagram.com/jamila_musayeva/p/C9sGJWguyvi/?img_index=1 Mlody1312 (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.google.com/search?q= jamila musayeva celebrating 33&sca_esv=6298c17d4a9e2aad&rlz=1C1CHBD_plPL1067PL1067&sxsrf=ADLYWIJKBP1opZEg0zH1u8zP72Iz_AtcbA:1729356746129&ei=yuMTZ4zCB4XOwPAPr5qruAg&ved=0ahUKEwiMz6v085qJAxUFJxAIHS_NCocQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq= jamila musayeva celebrating 33&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiHyBqYW1pbGEgbXVzYXlldmEgY2VsZWJyYXRpbmcgMzMyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAEyBBAhGBUyBBAhGBVI3S5QzRFYii5wAngBkAEAmAF7oAHQDaoBBDIuMTS4AQPIAQD4AQGYAhKgAsQOwgIKEAAYsAMY1gQYR8ICChAjGIAEGCcYigXCAgQQIxgnwgIFEC4YgATCAgYQABgHGB7CAgUQABiABMICFBAuGIAEGJcFGNwEGN4EGOAE2AEBwgIIEAAYgAQYywHCAgYQABgWGB7CAggQABiABBiiBMICBxAhGKABGAqYAwCIBgGQBgS6BgYIARABGBSSBwQzLjE1oAerTg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp Mlody1312 (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it, because claiming that instagram isn't valid in this case is ridiculous, it's like claiming that she herself doesn't know when was she born. Mlody1312 (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I reverted because Wikipedia does not include unsourced content on living people PamD 20:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll delete age data then. And when it comes to the clarification of certification, it is literally clarified in the article, in the "early life" section. Your addition is unjustified. Mlody1312 (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also, WP:INSTAGRAM "The official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source, but only if it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject." Mlody1312 (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian exonyms

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; an alternative to reading this article would be reading an Estonian dictionary. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms, which resulted in the French equivalent of this article being deleted. As argued there, this list is an indiscriminate list of place names. I agree that an article about the linguistic and historical aspects of the formation of place names in Estonian would be notable, but that is not what this is. SJD Willoughby (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lists, and Estonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trim: A few names in the list are evidently not cognate to the respective endonyms, and I'd preserve these. Otherwise, delete as trivial; each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography, okay, we get it. —Tamfang (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms) so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While this Afd discussion was up, the articles for Galician/Maltese/Catalan/Swedish exonyms were deleted for the same reasoning

SJD Willoughby (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right but I know other articles on exonyms that were sent to AFD have been kept. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a definition of exonyms given by the UN that means that such lists are not indiscriminate, but instead pass WP:LISTCRITERIA. By all means cull items that should not be there (such as toponyms that are the mere result of orthographic rules in different languages). But such lists themselves are encyclopedic. As for appealing to recent rulings, what's actually happened is that there has been a huge bunch of individual nominations, some closed very quickly, without any notification placed on the page most people interested in the topic would see: Talk:Endonym and exonym. OsFish (talk) 08:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The UN's definition says "differing in form", which is easily broad enough to encompass those that you (or I) would cull! —Tamfang (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even if there are criteria for this to be a complete list as per WP:LISTCRITERIA, I feel this does not meet the criteria for encyclopedic inclusion (Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence). As per WP:LISTGLOSSARY (emphasis mine): Glossaries – alphabetical, topical lists of terms, rather than of notable entities – are encyclopedic when the entries they provide are primarily informative explorations of the listed terminology [...] many ideas for glossaries, in which entries would be little more than dictionary definitions ("dicdefs"), may be better suited to Wiktionary. [...] some other, non-glossary lists of words can also yield an encyclopedic page [...] the condition being that reliable secondary sources for the topic can be cited. In my WP:BEFORE (admittedly, I am not a linguist / topic expert) I did not find significant commentary on them as a set / whole. Documents I could find are listings / dictionaries of exonyms, and sometimes etymologies or explanations of how a specific exonym was formed. Shazback (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to copy over my comment from the French exonyms AFD which I also think applies here: WP:NOTDICTIONARY, which this article obviously is (It's not a WP:GLOSSARIES, as it just provides straight translations between word). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the dictionaries of exonyms exist for some languages, I do not know any for Latvian, with the obvious and very limited war-making exception Latvijas vietvārdu katalogs Kopējo operāciju kartes (JOG) 1. izdevumam mērogā 1:250 000. Gazetteer of Latvia for the Joint Operation Graphic (JOG) 1st Edition at Scale 1:250 000. - Rīga: LĢIA, 2007. Even if these dictionaries are found, an attempt to replicate their content here will face an obvious difficulty: to be useful, it should cover a reasonable set of place names worldwide (a typical dictionary of this type has 100,000 entries), this would be a clear violation of WP:NOTDICT. Usefulness of a random subset of names (as in the current article text) is unclear, their selection is WP:OR. An article on the subject might be possible if scholarly work on exonyms in Latvian is found. This hypothetical article would be completely different from the one we have, thus suggesting the WP:TNT. --Викидим (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 13:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ingemar Burgström

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. Only sources I could find were 2 directory listings in Google books. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Olympics, and Sweden. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's 146 mentions in Swedish newspaper archives, of which a lot seem like they might contain sigcov. We need someone with access to verify their content though. AlexandraAVX (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article doesn't show significant independent coverage that meets WP:GNG. Losing in the first round of the Olympics and compiling an 8-7 record as a pro boxer means he also fails WP:NOLY and WP:NBOX. I can't comment on what coverage might exist in Swedish, so I am not voting as this time. Papaursa (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears very likely notable per AlexandraAVX. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources in Alexandra's search meet significant coverage for WP:BIO? LibStar (talk) 04:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are paywalled – however, given that we know that over 140 pieces of coverage do exist, someone would need to look at them to determine otherwise that he's not notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to assess the Swedish sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to VASP#Accidents and incidents. Star Mississippi 15:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VASP Flight 780

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

While tragic, there is no indication that this airplane crash meets WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT; if there was significant, long-lasting coverage, I can't find any sources to prove it. And I have no reason to believe there is likely to be long-lasting coverage: three deaths, crashed into the forest, and the crash was caused by pilot error.

Current three sources/links, used here and on the deWiki article, are unusable for notability/unusable.[14] is a user-generated wiki, [15] is a government report on the crash (they're required to make these for every single incident), [16] is a YouTube video of a cockpit recording. My WP:BEFORE revealed two YouTube videos:[17] [18], both unusable.

I have no prejudice against selectively merging/redirecting, should a suitable target be found. Given the limited ramifications of the initial crash, even if the topic can be shown notable a stand-alone page would likely not be warranted GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Brazil. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: it received reasonable coverage in Portuguese-language sources, as per pt:Voo VASP Cargo 780#Referências (note: there was no interlanguage link before). fgnievinski (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link! I'll have a look through them. The ptWiki does appear to be of better quality than the enWiki and deWiki articles.

[19] is user generated
[20] does not mention the plane crash or the plane itself
[21] is the same crash report (and cited four times)
[22] is the Aviationbase wiki again

Then there's four 1992 news reports, all dated to within a day of the accident. The ptWiki links are broken, but the headlines appear to be the fairly routine "a plane crash happened, people died" type story that, while useful, was something I knew was likely to exist and doesn't change my arguments about WP:NEVENT, lasting coverage, WP:GNG, and WP:PAGEDECIDE.

The information about a social media user visiting the plane crash is new to me, however. For reference, here are the links:

[23] (no author credited)
[24] (no author credited)

Both of these article, to me, mostly seem to focus on the influencer's trip to the site of the planecrash. They each spare a paragraph or two to sum up the crash itself, but it's mostly spent discussing the influencer. I'm also not an expert in Brazilian newspapers, especially very local ones, but I'm having a hard time finding information about either news source. juruaonline.com.br does not have an "about me" type page- all attempts to get one redirect you to their "advertise with us"/"submit a story" type pages. juruaemtempo.com.br does actually give you some information about its reporters, but none of them were apparently willing to attach their name to this piece. So far, they are still the only examples of any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE we have for this crash. And while these two sources are not enough to prove notability to me (I really don't think this article says anything that isn't already covered in List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737#1990s), they might be enough for somebody else to decide this is notable. So, thank you again for finding them @Fgnievinski! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also did a quick search for sources and can't find any online newspaper articles about the event. [25] fgnievinski (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom – Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: The event does not have in-depth, significant nor sustained continued coverage. Additionally, no lasting effects nor long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated as a result of the accident. Criterion #4 of the event criteria states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this accident lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to VASP#Accidents and incidents per WP:ATD-R. S5A-0043^Talk 10:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 15:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Parker (security researcher)

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

Autobiographical article, content is not substantiated by the sources and it does not seem possible to write more than a stub about the subject. The sources almost entirely briefly mention the subject in connection with a security vulnerability, some include short quotes from the subject, none seem to provide details on the subject themselves. Brandon (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Computing. Brandon (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide more details about what isn't substantiated by the sources? The small handful of paragraphs without citations have information that's given in articles cited elsewhere. If you could point to any specifics, I would be happy to either show which article(s) it comes from, or if one of the more recent citations that discuss it have been missed, add them.

In a lot of cases, the notability of a subject comes from their work, so I'm a bit confused how this would be different from many other articles on Wikipedia. Is this simply a categorization problem? In the public sector circles where this information travels, the name and works are quite well known; the number of high quality sources would also suggest this.

As for your comment about it not being possible to write more than a stub, I have to disagree. There is a lot more detail about the works and their specific effects that could be added, but I didn't find it prudent for myself to add that. Additionally, WP:Stub suggests that some editors and the bot would find that 250, 300, or 500 words (this one is 650 as of this note) is an appropriate length to not be considered a stub.

Having said all of that, I note your status on Wikipedia, and understand that there is little likelihood of this article staying. NorthAntara (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore the admin icon, I'm just someone who used to spend too much time on Wikipedia and enjoys computer security. My AfD nominations end with the article being kept as often as anyone else.

Being the primary author of an article about yourself is not recommended. You were extremely transparent, which is appreciated, it is just very challenging to write a neutral article based entirely on verifiable sources as the subject of the article yourself. With that said, here are some article about security researchers that have a tone and structure I'd suggest emulating: Tavis Ormandy, Eva Galperin, and Charlie Miller. Cutting inferences such as "leading to increased awareness and remediation of these issues" and the entire impact section would be the first edits I personally would make. Brandon (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I were the type to make bets on AfD results, I'd say this'd most likely close as no consensus like the Ian Coldwater AfD. Not sure if I'll dig in to see if I can find more sources for this one. We don't really do field specific versions of BIO for "coverage is pretty rare for this field" (except for academia) but on a quick review I'd say it's borderline for BASIC, not an outright fail. Not (yet) going to make it a !vote though, even if should it be possible or make sense to enter one for no consensus (wouldn't make much of a difference anyway since it's not a vote). Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Leaving aside the autobiographically-ness of the article, I think having ArsTechnica, a variety of legal sources, TechCrunch and SC Media go into depth about a specific vulnerability and explicitly accredit the discovery of said vulnerabilities to a person, should push the said person over the bar of WP:GNG, since, such coverage is pretty rare in the field of cybersecurity and would count as significant coverage (imo).Sohom (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. The biggest problem with autobiography on a website that never ever publishes original research is that it violates our reason for existence as an encyclopedia. As of 2024, everyone not hiding under a rock and illiterate (I’m being figurative here, not literal) knows that we don’t do creative writing, publish patents pending, and experimental scholarly work. Everything written on Wikipedia needs a citation: it’s a basic requirement for biographical writing, which as a general rule requires significant coverage in three or more secondary or reliable primary sources. We are currently being sued for just mentioning a judge’s name; India could cut off another 1/4 of humanity from Wikipedia. Turning to the subject page, ~~about 2/3 is completely unsourced.~~ there’s not a single secondary source. As an aside, we really avoid being a soap box for advocacy and we are not a free web host. Sorry, but the writer knew or should have known that this was going to be deleted. Bearian (talk)

I’ve removed all of the unsourced information and analysis, stubifying the page. I think this is closer to WP:BARE than before. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 13:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flagon and Trencher

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, only mentions and brief descriptions (for example, on ProQuest). toweli (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, History, Organizations, and United States of America. toweli (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Found some pieces that document the activity of the organization. Take a look [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. Piscili (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those don't provide significant coverage and/or aren't reliable sources. toweli (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have to agree with the nom. The sources don't appear to be reliable and keeping this article based on the provided coverage doesn't make sense to me. Clearly fails GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A clearer source eval on the newly found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Herald, Where are the newly found sources? Both @Toweli: and I objected to keeping the article based on the coverage provided on 24 September, as it’s nowhere near reliable. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib, A clearer and deeper source evaluation is appreciated, along with more inputs for clear consensus. The presence of multiple references with passing mentions could mean there might be some notability, but sans SIGCOV. Hence, relisted for more inputs. If not, it can be deleted soon. Happy editing. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Kalyanam Mudhal Kadhal Varai. The main contention here was whether The Times of India is (1) a reliable source, and (2) one that can prove notability for this subject. The many RfCs we had about this suggest that the answer to both is a tentative Yes--as long as we have a second, non-TOI source to support it. The request for supporting sources was made here almost three weeks ago, yet no such sources were found. I don't see enough disruptive editing to justify a page protection, but any admin not actively involved in the editing--including those who participated here or in the other AfDs--may of course apply such protection or impose blocks as needed. Owen× ☎ 16:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modhalum Kaadhalum

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

This is actually the third deletion discussion. Originally deleted under this discussion in early 2023 prior to being recreated under alternative name which was then a no consensus at this discussion. Out of the 21 references listed on the page this is the only reference that may be notable but I cannot read it so not sure. The rest fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA or are otherwise unreliable. Would recommend a redirect to the original program it is based on (Yeh Hai Mohabbatein). CNMall41 (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: There are reliable sources present, opposed to deletion. Also have a strong references from (The Times of India, medianews4u.com, Dinamalar, Indian Express Tamil). It was one of the famous show, and also notable cast. Original program and Tamil version are very different.. story was also changes. also cast also different. the original version was aired 1,895 episodes (lot of cast and long story), Tamil version was aired only 304 episodes. i am against of recommend a redirect to the original program. i don't Kmow why, You are very interested in deleting this article. This is third time for Nomination of Modhalum Kaadhalum for deletion. Strong Keep--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 06:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The references that you state (which I am assuming are the ones on the page) are all unreliable and fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Cast, number of episodes, it being a "famous show" has no bearing on notability unless there is significant coverage from RELIABLE sources to support. Can you link to the sources that are significant (and reliable)? Please do not link to anything that falls under NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and add sources like https://tamil.timesnownews.com/entertainment/modhalum-kaadhalum-serial-last-episode-coming-soon-at-vijay-tv-big-shock-to-fans-vikram-vedha-thanvi-article-110957049 (or similar articles in the same media, all bylined) or https://www.skspread.com/vijay-tv-modhalum-kaadhalum-serial-ending-soon-latest-news/ ; some of the numerous TOI articles can be used for verification; at the very least, redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Star_Vijay#Scripted_series_2 or merge with the article about the series it is a reboot of (Kalyanam Mudhal Kadhal Varai#Spin-off, rather than the original series, but would that help the reader as much as a page? Not sure. And a lot of informations would be lost. (Opposed to deletion, too) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Yeh_Hai_Mohabbatein#Adaptations. Per nom. Sources are poor to unreliable like source 1,2,4,6,12,13,18,20,21 and the others fall in WP:NEWSORGINDIA criteria with promotion and launch of the show, mentions on debut of an actress, exit of an actress and cast additions. RangersRus (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kalyanam Mudhal Kadhal Varai: or other target as proposed to be enforced by blocks or protection. I was AfD1 closer and AfD2 nom and I still don't think this meets the requirements for independent notability as sourcing is far from sufficient. Star Mississippi 02:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE or REDIRECT: Poor sources. Low notability. Jellysandwich0 (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a source evaluation: simply grouping all the TOI sources under RSNOI without properly evaluating each and every source seems inappropriate especially when the RFC on TOI does acknowledge that only some articles have issues.

After all, this is an Indian TV show and the only sources that will discuss this is Indian sources. Simply eliminating almost every source under this RSNOI from an information page doesn’t seem like a well thought-out rationale, especially when only TOI is on WP:RSPS. — Karnataka 20:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming that was not done. They were evaluated and are churnalism falling under NEWSORGINDIA. If there is one you feel isn't, please provide the link and I will have a look. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sufficiently sourced. Times of India is usable per WP:TOI. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a perspective to have. However, being usable does not mean it can be used to establish notability. That is also the reason why I did not discredit these simply for being from the TOI. The many RfCs have concluded that the TOI needs additional consideration to determine if if it reliable for that specific reference. I checked them all and these are churnalism and promotional. If you want to provide some that you feel can be used to establish notability, I will have a look and withdraw the nomination if they are usable to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 13:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rafey Kazi

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

I draftified the BLP, but J1477 (talk · contribs) the creator of the BLP reverted my draftification, leaving me no choice but to take it to AFD. I don’t understand why new editors aren’t using the AFC route and instead revert draftifications, which just leads articles to deletions. Anyway, the BLP definitely reads like PROMO and I suspect there’s a COI at play as the same creator also attempted to make a BLP on the subject back in 2021, but it was deleted under G11.I don’t see it meeting GNG at all, nor does it fulfill any of the criteria outlined in the additional criteria for BLPs. Fwiw, an IP 98.201.3.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also edited the BLP from Houston and COBAIT, whose CEO is Rafey Kazi, is also based there. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting finding. J1477 also previously created a BLP for Laura Mohiuddin, who works as a Digital Marketing Strategist at the U.S.-based company COBAIT, where Rafey Kazi is the CEO. This definitely proves a COI, even though J1477 isn't ready to acknowledge it on the their talk page when asked. Also, J1477 created a BLP for Mohiuddin Ahmed (diplomat) who's Laura's father, according to Laura's own website. @Axad12: Do you think I should bring this up at COI/N as well? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely. The related nature of the article subjects and the user's evasion in relation to answering about non-financial CoI gives it away. Axad12 (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see that the user denied any CoI (well, technically they have denied being paid, they haven't actually denied any relationship with the subject). However, it is a demonstrable fact that as least one of the sources (PressNewsRoom) that they point to on their talk page [34] is not a WP:RS source. From the relevant link (here [35]) select 'add your story' (top right of page) and you arrive at a page starting If you are interested in adding your story, press release or other news, [etc], which presumably explains why the article is highly promotional and was only published a few weeks ago in an apparent attempt at astroturfing (i.e. installing articles in the media in an attempt to later demonstrate notability on Wikipedia). Similarly, the other source (The Org, [36]) appears to be user generated content and thus also is not WP:RS compliant. Axad12 (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that concerns have been raised regarding a potential conflict of interest (COI) in relation to the articles I’ve written about Mohiuddin Ahmed, Laura Mohiuddin, and Rafey Kazi, and I’d like to clarify my motivations and address the issue directly.
First and foremost, my intention in writing these articles has been to contribute to Wikipedia by documenting notable individuals based on research and publicly available sources. Here is the context of how I came across these figures and why I believe there is no question of COI:
Mohiuddin Ahmed: Being a proud Bangladeshi, I have been drawn to Mohiuddin Ahmed for a long time because of his well-known role as a freedom fighter during Bangladesh's war of independence from Pakistan and his subsequent diplomatic career. I watched many of his TV shows and read his columns on renowned news platforms in Bangladesh. His historical significance and contributions to diplomacy are well documented, and I felt they merited inclusion in Wikipedia as part of my general interest in notable historical figures, especially those connected to South Asian history.

Laura Mohiuddin: While researching Mohiuddin Ahmed’s family and connections, I came across Laura Mohiuddin a long time ago. I was particularly interested in her involvement with social entrepreneurship through the Infolady and other programs, which had a meaningful impact on empowering women in rural areas. I believed that her innovative work in these field was notable, and that’s why I decided to write an article on her. It was through this research that I learned of her professional career in digital marketing.

Rafey Kazi: During my research on Laura Mohiuddin, I discovered her connection to COBAIT, and that is where I came across Rafey Kazi. I was fascinated by his dual career as an IT leader and cricketer and found that his role in both fields warranted attention. His involvement in veteran cricket, especially the Over-50s Cricket World Cup, and his leadership in the technology sector were both well documented through independent sources. Rafey Kazi has been recognized as one of America’s PremierExperts® for his contributions to the IT sector and cybersecurity. This is a significant honor that reflects his impact in a highly specialized field. Additionally, he has been featured in Fast Company magazine in a full-page spread titled 'You Can’t Get Unhacked,' further underscoring his expertise and thought leadership in technology and security. My intent in writing about Rafey Kazi was to highlight his achievements in these fields, not to promote any particular organization or person.

No Promotional Intent: I want to make it very clear that I did not promote any company, link, or specific organization in any of the articles I’ve written. My goal was to ensure that notable contributions from individuals in the fields of technology, cricket, diplomacy, and social entrepreneurship were represented on Wikipedia. At no point did I attempt to advertise or promote any business or product, and I have adhered to Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and verifiability.

Contribution Beyond These Articles: It’s also worth noting that I have contributed to Wikipedia by writing and editing articles on various other topics unrelated to these individuals. My editing activity reflects a broad interest in contributing to the platform, and the articles related to Mohiuddin Ahmed, Laura Mohiuddin, and Rafey Kazi just happen to be part of that larger effort to highlight underrepresented but notable individuals.

Addressing Sources: I acknowledge the concerns about the use of certain sources like PressNewsRoom and The Org, and I am more than willing to improve the articles by replacing these with more reliable sources where available. However, my use of these sources was based on their availability at the time, and I believed they provided verifiable information about the subjects. I am open to working with other editors to strengthen the articles with more widely recognized sources.
Conclusion:

In conclusion, my contributions were driven by an interest in documenting notable figures from different fields. While I understand that the individuals I’ve written about are connected, I did not set out to write about them with any promotional intent or COI. I believe that each of these individuals has made independent contributions that deserve recognition. I remain committed to upholding Wikipedia’s neutrality standards and am happy to address any specific concerns to improve the quality and reliability of the articles.

Additionally, most notable figures are already well-documented on Wikipedia, and as a contributor, it’s my goal to bring attention to other individuals who have made significant contributions but may not have had the same level of public visibility. While widely recognized figures tend to get covered quickly, there are many notable people in the fields of diplomacy, technology, social entrepreneurship, and sports who deserve a place on Wikipedia. My intent is to highlight these figures, particularly those from diverse backgrounds, whose contributions might otherwise go unnoticed.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize that my intent in contributing to Wikipedia has always been with good intentions—to highlight notable individuals and organizations who may otherwise go unnoticed. I have made numerous contributions to the platform, all with the goal of expanding the knowledge available and ensuring that underrepresented figures receive the recognition they deserve. I have worked hard to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines, and it would indeed be disappointing if my account were to be banned when no conflict of interest exists. My only goal was to contribute positively to the community, and I hope this is recognized in the review of my contributions.
J1477 (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
J1477, Since you continue to deny your COI, despite clear evidence, I have no choice but to report you to the COI/N at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#J1477 (talk · contribs). — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The long post above was mostly (85%) written by AI, according to gptzero.me. I'd suggest that it be scored from the AfD as inadmissable (although it is only really a denial of COI rather than a meaningful contribution to the notability of the article under discussion). Axad12 (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if there was no COI, this would still fail WP:GNG. He is a run of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails Notability and its definitely PROMO. Wikibear47 (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the only sources talking about Kazi are churnalism, paid PR media, and other promotional content Tavantius (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Heroes Reborn characters#Tommy Clark. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Clark

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

Google search only returns brief mentions/plot summaries that do not contribute to notability. Has been tagged for notability since June 2022. Spinixster (trout me!) 07:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Spinixster (trout me!) 07:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Heroes Reborn characters#Tommy Clark where he is already fully covered. The sources being used as "Reception" here are terrible (one is literally just a couple words about the character), and searches did not turn up any kind of significant coverage in reliable sources that would justify splitting this out into a separate article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. This doesn't pass WP:GNG, but there is a list where this can be mentioned. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coinrule

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

Run-of-the-mill crypto company, no noteworthy third party coverage to speak of unfortunately. Had meant to nominate this two weeks ago but it slipped my mind. In any case, here it is now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and United Kingdom. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Forbes is a contributor piece, The Standard isn't a RS. Neither of these help. I can only bring up PR items, I don't see notability for this crypto firm. Oaktree b (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Standard is an electronic outlet published by Evening Standard which is "no consensus" at WP:RSP. The linked article doesn't show a lot of editorial independence, but I'm unaware of any consensus around the outlet itself. Oblivy (talk) 04:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's orange, as is the Forbes piece, both of questionable notability per Cite Highlighter, that wasn't clear in my first comment. Oaktree b (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "it's orange". Perennial sources shows it as yellow; isn't that the most reliable place to look? Oblivy (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yellow and orange mean pretty much the same thing (MREL) and all of the usual userscripts take things from the same places, but while I would not be impressed at someone using a MREL source to try and establish NCORP in most cases, the easier reason to reject this one is because it's 90% quotes. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I've closed hundres of AFD discussions and this is the clearest divide I've seen in a while. Editors arguing for Delete can not find valid sources in large part because they are primarily in the Japanese language. Editors arguing to Keep have attempted to translate Japanese language sources presented here or found and find them sufficient to establish notabiity. Since Wikipedia has no bias against non-English language sources, I have to close this as Keep and also urge editors to move some of these sources into the article soon or it could be brought back to AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daisuke Tsuda (YouTuber)

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

WP:NPEOPLE Paradoctor (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. Paradoctor (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to fail the notability guidelines for WP:NPEOPLE. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr.Tsuda is a prominent figure in Japan's internet scene, with over 20 years of experience. From the early days of Twitter Japan's service, he has engaged in various activities as a "media activist(a term he coined)", creating the buzzword "tsuda-ru". He served as a forum committee member for Asahi Shimbun, one of Japan's leading quality media outlets, from 2015 to 2019, and in 2019, he was the artistic director for the Aichi Triennale, an arts festival organized by Aichi Prefecture, establishing himself as a significant presence in the public discourse. His activities have been recognized by public institutions, having been appointed as a member of various government councils and positions in the aforementioned Aichi Prefecture events. Since 2020, he has shifted his focus to his self-established YouTube channel, "POLITAS TV", where he operates as a political opinion YouTuber, engaging in a range of discourse activities. Therefore, he should not be deleted. MihariHarukaze (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Please point to the independent sources that show him being "a prominent figure in Japan's internet scene". Geschichte (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Follower Count on X (formerly Twitter): As of October 9, 2024, Tsuda's X account has 1.466 million followers, ranking among the top influencers in Japan. For comparison, the Prime Minister of Japan, Shigeru Ishiba, has 418,000 followers (Shigeru Ishiba X account), and the left-wing journalist Isoko Mochizuki, known as the model for the Netflix global series "The Journalist", has 319,000 followers (Isoko Mochizuki X account). This shows that Tsuda is one of Japan’s leading left-wing influencers (Daisuke Tsuda X account).
  
  Official Profile: According to a 2017 profile published by the public relations department of Aichi Prefecture, Tsuda has been active as an internet expert since the 2000s and has appeared in various mass media outlets. He has authored several books on the internet and has held positions as a professor at higher education institutions and as a member of various government committees (Aichi Prefecture PR Document).
  
  Asahi Shimbun Opinion Committee Member: Tsuda served as a member of the opinion committee for Asahi Shimbun, one of Japan's leading quality media outlets, highlighting his recognition in the world of public discourse (Asahi Shimbun Daisuke Tsuda Opinion).
  
  Mention in Ryukyu Shimpo: In 2018, Tsuda was listed as one of the "famous people (著名人)" in an article by Ryukyu Shimpo, Okinawa’s leading regional newspaper, indicating his influence is acknowledged even in regional media (Ryukyu Shimpo).
  
  Artistic Director of Aichi Triennale: In 2019, Tsuda served as the artistic director of the Aichi Triennale, an arts festival hosted by Aichi Prefecture. This event was sponsored by global corporations headquartered in Aichi Prefecture, such as Toyota Motor Corporation, further demonstrating Tsuda's public activities and societal recognition. (Aichi Prefecture Document, Triennale Report)
  
  This evidence shows that Tsuda is not only an expert on internet issues but also a well-known figure with influence across multiple fields. MihariHarukaze (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Uh, have you read WP:NPEOPLE? If not, please do now. While you're at it, you may find Wikipedia:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia? instructive.
  
  BTW, that "Official Profile" you mentioned? That's a one-page chronological list of Tsuda's contributions, basically what you'd find as part of a CV. That's not significant coverage in accord with NPEOPLE. Paradoctor (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Selected as a Young Global Leader (2013): In 2013, Tsuda was selected as one of the “Young Global Leaders Honourees” by the World Economic Forum in Davos. (The selection list is available here)
  
  Appeared in FOX News (2010): In June 2010, Tsuda appeared as an expert in an Associated Press's article titled "Twitter a hit in Japan as 'mumbling' tweeters give micro-blogging a distinctly Japanese flavor", which was featured on FOX News. (The FOX News article is available here)
  
  Controversy at Aichi Triennale 2019: In 2019, Tsuda served as the artistic director of Aichi Triennale 2019, which featured works such as a piece that involved burning an image of Emperor Hirohito and a statue symbolizing "comfort women". This exhibition sparked nationwide protests, with critics labeling it "disrespectful" toward the Emperor. The controversy received extensive media coverage, and Takashi Kawamura, the Mayor of Nagoya, staged a sit-in protest in opposition to the exhibition's content. The matter was also discussed in the Japanese parliament, leading to a prolonged national debate. Tsuda faced widespread criticism from various sectors. (NHK article, Mainichi article)
  
  Keynote Speech at "Critics in Residence @KYOTO EXPERIMENT 2024": On October 8, 2024, Tsuda delivered the keynote speech at the "Critics in Residence @KYOTO EXPERIMENT 2024”, hosted by the Delegation of the European Union to Japan. The event's introduction describes him as "widely known for his critical writing about recent shifts in the Japanese and international media environment as well as for establishing his own platforms for independent journalism".
  
  Cited in Google Scholar: A search for "Daisuke Tsuda Media Journalism" on Google Scholar reveals numerous academic papers citing Tsuda, showcasing his influence in the field of media and journalism. (Google Scholar search results)
  
  Appearances on NHK Programs: A search for "津田大介" of NHK’s program database reveals that Tsuda has frequently appeared as an expert on various programs. (NHK Archives search results)
  
  Mentions in CiNii: A search for "津田大介" on CiNii, the academic database operated by Japan's National Institute of Informatics, shows several articles related to media, internet, and journalism that mention Tsuda, aside from mentions of researchers with the same name. (CiNii Research search results)
  
  Featured in Major Japanese Newspapers: A search for "津田大介" in Japan's three major newspapers (The Asahi Shimbun, The Nikkei, and Sankei News) reveals that Tsuda has appeared in numerous articles, excluding those concerning a Dentsu employee with the same name. (The Asahi Shimbun search results, The Nikkei search results, Sankei News search results)
  
  MihariHarukaze (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tired a .jp website search, nothing comes up. This in a Korean paper [37] briefly mentions this person. Likely more in Japanese sources? I don't know. Oaktree b (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In today's Asahi Shimbun Digital article titled "How did you view the party leaders' debate before the snap dissolution? With Daisuke Tsuda and Seiko Mimaki (スピード解散前の党首討論、どう見た？　津田大介さんと三牧聖子さん)", Tsuda appears as one of the experts. While there are differing opinions about Tsuda’s political views and activities, it is undeniable that he is a well-known public figure. MihariHarukaze (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  We require articles about him, not just him speaking on a particular subject, that's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:NPEOPLE: "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary. Paradoctor (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  (Reading the Wind) "If You Want to Exhibit the Comfort Woman Statue" - Editor-in-Chief Masato Inui (Source: Sankei Shimbun, August 6, 2019) Link to article
  
  Event Exhibiting Comfort Woman Statue in Aichi: Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga States "We Will Carefully Examine the Facts and Respond Appropriately" (Source: Sankei Shimbun, August 2, 2019) Link to article
  
  Daisuke Tsuda Apologizes: "The Situation Exceeded Our Expectations. I Take Full Responsibility." (Source: Asahi Shimbun, August 3, 2019) Link to article
  
  The Year of Survival for News Apps: What Will Determine the Winners and Losers (Source: The Nikkei, January 9, 2015) Link to article
  
  "No System in Place to Prevent the Director’s Judgment Errors" – Final Report on the Aichi Triennale (Source: The Nikkei, December 18, 2019) Link to article
  
  MihariHarukaze (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  All of these articles with the exception of the short third one only features the name ("津田大介") a single time. E.g. the last article is about the "After Freedom of Expression?" exhibition and mentions the guy once as a director. It does not provide in-depth coverage of him. Cortador (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a review of the sources brought to this discussion. It would have been helpful if there had been a more comprehensive deletion nomination statement that demonstrated a BEFORE had been done instead of just a policy acronym which doesn't explain much at all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Japanese Wikipedia article has 59 references. Did the nominator and two delete !voters actually do a thorough inspection of every single one of those sources to validate their claims? Left guide (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't check all the sources, and won't be able to do so because I can't read Japanese. However, I bunch of the sources are Twitter links, some are YouTube links, a few don't feature the name of the subject or only feature it once. Some are even other Wikipedia articles, which suggests the sourcing situation isn't exactly stellar. Cortador (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPEOPLE, and article only has 2 references. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(I spread pro-Weezer propaganda)} 14:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References from Japanese Wikipedia article:

^ https://www.pref.aichi.jp/soshiki/bunka/2017071801.html

^ a b c “津田大介公式サイト | プロフィール”. 2020年8月20日閲覧。

^ “津田大介さんらが"ヤング・グローバル・リーダー"に--世界経済フォーラム”. マイナビニュース (2013年3月14日). 2023年3月21日閲覧。

^ Inc, Aetas. “津田大介の“本性”を見た！――ジャーナリスト津田大介氏がゲストの「ゲーマーはもっと経営者を目指すべき！」第13回”. www.4gamer.net. 2019年8月1日閲覧。

^ 【津田大介】どんな仕事も初回は断らない。自分に課した辛いルールが広げた仕事の幅｜VENTURE FOR JAPAN｜note

^ “津田大介公式サイト | プロフィール”. 2021年1月10日閲覧。

^ “世の中の大きな変わり目を経験した若者が、将来社会を変革していく”. www.univcoop.or.jp. www.univcoop.or.jp (2021年7月19日). 2023年8月8日閲覧。

^ “津田大介「ウェブで政治を動かす！」書評新しい民主主義を作るために”. book.asahi.com. book.asahi.com (2012年12月2日). 2023年8月8日閲覧。

^ 津田大介ツイッター2011年5月3日2022年10月26日閲覧

^ a b “津田大介さん”. すぎなみ学倶楽部 (2014年1月14日). 2021年6月18日閲覧。

^ 上田市の上田染谷丘高校を昭和38年に卒業した同級生が青木村で同級会！

^ 添田隆典 (2019年5月26日). “＜家族のこと話そう＞闘う両親に影響受け　ジャーナリスト・津田大介さん”. 東京新聞. オリジナルの2021年5月11日時点におけるアーカイブ。 2021年3月2日閲覧。

^ 朝日新聞2013年1月31日（木曜日）「おやじのせなか」理想追い思想押しつけず(津田大介さん)

^ “大手メディアでなく「赤旗」がスクープ連発はなぜ？/ＦＭラジオ番組小木曽編集局長語る”. www.jcp.or.jp. 2022年5月30日閲覧。

^ a b Inc, Aetas. “津田大介の“本性”を見た！――ジャーナリスト津田大介氏がゲストの「ゲーマーはもっと経営者を目指すべき！」第13回”. www.4gamer.net. 2019年8月1日閲覧。

^ 『現代用語の基礎知識 2010』 p.1225

^ a b 藤崎麻里. “「tsudaる」が生まれた日誰も報じない審議会…中継が始まった”. withnews.jp. 2022年5月30日閲覧。

^ 津田大介『情報の呼吸法』「第1章情報は行動を引き起こすためにある」p.19

^ “津田大介さん、あいちトリエンナーレの芸術監督に就任へ”. 朝日新聞. 2017年12月12日時点のオリジナルよりアーカイブ。2017年7月19日閲覧。

^ a b “『あいちトリエンナーレ』芸術監督に津田大介「新しい芸術監督像を期待」”. CINRA.NET. 2019年8月1日閲覧。

^ “日本社会の「タブー」東京で展示”. ハンギョレ新聞 (2015年1月18日). 2020年8月17日閲覧。

^ “【主張】企画展再開　ヘイト批判に答えがない”. 産経新聞. (2019年10月9日)

^ “愛知芸術祭アドバイザー東浩紀氏が辞意「善後策提案採用されず」”. 産経新聞. (2019年8月14日). オリジナルの2021年4月20日時点におけるアーカイブ。 2022年5月30日閲覧。

^ 佐藤直子、稲垣太郎「こちら特捜部『表現の不自由展』中止の衝撃（上）脅迫に屈する『悪しき前例』市長や政権攻撃あおる芸術監督・津田大介氏『文化に対する暴力テロ事件』」『東京新聞』2019年8月6日付朝刊、特報1面、22頁。

^ “「不自由展」監督　津田氏登壇シンポ中止へ　神戸市、抗議相次ぎ”. 東京新聞. (2019年8月9日) 2021年6月18日閲覧。

^ 『中日新聞』2020年8月26日付朝刊、二社、28面、「大村知事リコール署名集めスタート高須氏代表の団体」。

^ “リコール署名妨害と高須院長　映画評論家らを告発”. 共同通信. (2020年9月1日). オリジナルの2020年9月1日時点におけるアーカイブ。 2021年2月28日閲覧。

^ “高須氏らが愛知県を提訴あいちトリエンナーレめぐり”. 朝日新聞. (2020年12月22日) 2021年2月24日閲覧。

^ 『中日新聞』2020年11月8日付朝刊、二社、26面、「大村知事リコール高須氏が活動終了病状悪化で」。

^ “愛知知事リコール署名「83％に不正の疑い」県選管が調査結果、刑事告発も検討”. 毎日新聞. 2021年2月16日閲覧。

^ 津田大介 Twitter 2020年11月7日午後9:41

^ “高須院長　津田氏に「謝罪遅れたら法廷」「癌で弱っていると思ってなめるな」”. デイリースポーツ. (2020年11月8日) 2020年11月11日閲覧。

^ “愛知県知事解職請求に係る署名簿の調査の取りまとめ状況について” (PDF). 愛知県選挙管理委員会 (2021年2月1日). 2021年2月25日閲覧。

^ “知事リコール署名は８３％無効　愛知県選管が不正疑い告発検討”. 中日新聞. (2021年2月2日) 2021年2月25日閲覧。

^ “署名偽造容疑で田中孝博事務局長ら４人を逮捕、全容解明へ　愛知県知事リコール不正”. (2021年5月19日) 2021年9月9日閲覧。

^ 「不自由展」をめぐるネット右派の論理と背理――アートとサブカルとの対立をめぐって/伊藤昌亮 - SYNODOS

^ “知事リコール署名めぐりジャーナリスト津田氏、香山氏ら４人書類送検愛知県警：中京テレビＮＥＷＳ”. 中京テレビＮＥＷＳ. 2021年9月9日時点のオリジナルよりアーカイブ。2021年9月9日閲覧。

^ “愛知リコール署名巡り津田大介氏ら書類送検　県警、起訴求めぬ意見か”. 朝日新聞DIGITAL. 2022年6月26日閲覧。

^ “リコール署名偽造、捜査に一区切り元市議ら7人不起訴”. 朝日新聞. (2022年3月17日) 2024年3月5日閲覧。

^ “「ダウンロード違法化」で報告書まとまる iPod課金は「合意できず」”. ITmedia NEWS (2008年12月16日). 2022年5月30日閲覧。

^ 新サイト「ポリタス」で政治を可視化する！編集長・津田大介氏に使い方と狙いを聞いたダイヤモンド・オンライン 2013年7月18日

^ 「津田大介プロフィール」津田大介公式サイト

^ 「津田大介」幻冬舎

^ “津田大介さん、あいちトリエンナーレの芸術監督に就任へ”. 朝日新聞. 2017年12月12日時点のオリジナルよりアーカイブ。2017年7月19日閲覧。

^ “津田大介とジョー横溝が仕掛ける前代未聞のトークフェス『RONDAN FES 2024 in IZU』の全貌”. Rooftop (2024年8月1日). 2024年8月30日閲覧。

^ 週刊朝日 2019年3月1日号

^ プレス民主2014年3月22日【提言】「ネットを活用し、新しい政治のうねりを」津田大介氏

^ Independent Web Journal2013年4月3日【IWJブログ：反差別訴える市民、排外デモ隊を終始包囲】

^ ウートピ2014年6月27日【都議会ヤジ事件】津田大介氏や蓮舫議員も参加　ネットで署名を行った市民100人が集まり今後の対策を議論

^ 弁護士ドットコム2014年6月26日津田大介氏「セクハラヤジは日本の恥」「変わるきっかけに」イベントで意識変革訴える

^ 流行語大賞鳥越俊太郎氏と津田大介氏、「保育園落ちた日本死ね」のトップテン入りに「賛成」産経新聞

^ "河野談話は俺じゃない！" 外務大臣に起用された河野太郎氏の人となりは 2017年08月04日 abema news

^ “https://twitter.com/tsuda/status/1456172429886181383”. Twitter. 2021年11月6日閲覧。

^ “https://twitter.com/tsuda/status/1456172434273361927”. Twitter. 2021年11月6日閲覧。

^ “津田大介、女性共演者の「トイレの音と匂いを想像」発言で大炎上！！（2017/08/17 徳間書店「アサジョ」）”. アサジョ. 2021年11月18日閲覧。

^ “津田大介氏、不都合な真実”. Togetter. 2021年10月8日閲覧。

^ “https://twitter.com/tsuda/status/1359076627460747267”. Twitter. 2021年10月8日閲覧。

^ “報道ヨミトキMONDAY #14”. ポリタスTV (2021年7月5日). 2021年7月6日閲覧。

^ 津田大介 - オリコンTV出演情報

Left guide (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter posts aren't helpful for notability purposes. The rest aren't even hotlinked, so I don't know what you want us to do with them. We don't speak the language. This is a wall of text that really does nothing for this discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. It should be put in a collapsed template. This discussion was already bloated enough, by replies from Mihari Harukaze who unfortunately can't distinguish between a source about the subject, a source mentioning the subject and a source from the subject. Geschichte (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ja.wiki references collapsed per above suggestion. Left guide (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Draft maybe? This [38] is a video, but in a RS. Suggests notability, but the sourcing is just copy-paste from the Japanese wiki, with no attention given to translations. Needs to be reworked. Oaktree b (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a draft. While the sourcing of the Japanese article isn't great at surface level, we really only need a handful sources with good coverage. Hopefully someone who can read Japanese and/or knows Japanese sources better can chime in. Cortador (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some of the links and material posted earlier in this discussion by MihariHarukaze may merit further examination. At first glance, it understandably appears to be a rather indiscriminate list of things that include the article subject's name, but this English-language book published by Duke University Press contains six mentions of the article subject. Left guide (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am responding at the request of Left guide. Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which 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. A book and a PhD thesis from the scholar Elizabeth Rodwell:
  1. Rodwell, Elizabeth (2024). Push the Button: Interactive Television and Collaborative Journalism in Japan. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press. p. 12, 52–53, 75. ISBN 978-1-4780-2102-5. Retrieved 2024-10-20 – via Google Books.
    The book notes on pages 12: "In parallel, it was of great interest to self-proclaimed “media activist” Tsuda Daisuke that while an estimated one-third to one-half of Japanese computer users engaged with any form of social media, Twitter use had expanded dramatically between 2010 and 2012 as individuals sought alternative means by which to exchange written and visual information."
    The book notes on pages 52–53: "As prominent (self-described) “media activist” Tsuda Daisuke writes about nn, its strength lies in its capacity to allow viewers to interact with presenters, and with one another, simultaneously. Always seated behind his laptop during broadcasts, Tsuda, who appears regularly on both television and radio as well as nn, practices what he preaches by engaging fluidly with both embodied and virtual interlocutors simultaneously during his media appearances. Tsuda’s frequent commentary resembles media scholar Kitada Akihiro’s theorization of participation in these rapid-fire online communities as being more about the “pleasure of the social communication itself ” than the topics being discussed."
    The book notes on page 75: "For media activist Tsuda Daisuke, this potential defines his interest in interactive technologies; YouTube, NicoNico, and similar platforms can introduce a broad selection of events to a diverse national body and inspire them to protest, volunteer, or otherwise mobilize."
  2. Rodwell, Elizabeth A. (2015). Push the Button: Interactive Television and Collaborative Journalism in Japan (PhD thesis). Duke University. ProQuest 2001550937.
    The PhD thesis notes on page 4: "Nonetheless, it was interesting to me to see the extent to which the mass media flirted with such individuals, offering more prominent figures such as Uesugi Takashi and Tsuda Daisuke⁶ regular hosting gigs on (usually BS channel) television programs, and radio stations."
    The 6th footnote notes: "In this dissertation I will follow Japanese and anthropological convention when referring to Japanese individuals, and writing their last (family) names before their surnames. According to American convention, Tsuda Daisuke would be Daisuka Tsuda, as Tsuda is his “last” name."
    The thesis notes on page 48: "As prominent media activist Tsuda Daisuke writes about NND, its strength lies in its capacity to allow viewers to interact with presenters, and with one another simultaneously. Always seated behind his laptop during broadcasts, Tsuda, who appears regularly on both television and radio as well as NND, practices what he preaches by engaging fluidly with both embodied and virtual commentators during his media appearances–if not on NND, then on Twitter."
    The thesis notes on page 117: "From the perspective of prominent (and self-described) media activist Tsuda Daisuke, this capacity represents social media’s inherent strength; YouTube and UStream introduce a diverse selection of events to a diverse national body, whose members may be inspired to take action or become involved."
    The thesis notes on page 134: "Thus, it was of great interest to Tsuda that while in 2010 an estimated 1/3 to 1/2 of Japanese computer users engaged social media in any way, Twitter use in particular expanded dramatically between 2010-2012, as individuals sought alternative means by which to exchange written and visual information."
    The thesis notes on pages 137–138: "Referring back to the historical absence of a “kifu bunka” (donation culture) in Japan, Tsuda addresses what he believes is a culture in transition: “Korekara ‘kifu’ ga būmu ni naru,” (The ‘donation’ boom is coming) he titles a chapter in one of his recent books. Within his formulation ..., America’s donation culture is one worth emulating. While he praises services like the Japanese crowdfunding website Just Giving, his acquisitiveness about the potentials of a distinctly Japanese means to fundraising leads him to society’s widespread use of Suica cards, ... In the meantime, he acknowledges that social media has made political action easier, but, ..."
    The thesis notes on page 140: "Our Planet TV had recently held an FPAJ press conference without suffering negative repercussions, as had the Tsuda Daisuke-affiliated political group “Democracy 2.0”–although both of these groups benefitted from and were somewhat insulated by the accumulated social capital of their most prominent representatives. Tsuda-san and Shiraiishi-san both represent a credible and high quality journalistic body of work, and their integrity generally unquestioned."
    The thesis notes on page 160: "In another case, the prominent and self described “media activist” (media akutobisuto), Tsuda Daisuke– instantly recognizable by his platinum-dyed hair (kinpatsu) and sticker-covered laptop–maintains a public schedule of appearances on his website (http://tsuda.ru/); indeed his circulation as a product, and the circulation of his work is sufficient that they must be subcategorized on the basis of television, radio, publications, etc. Like most contemporary media activists, he tweets avidly (@tsuda), and was not only an early adopter of the medium, but a vocal proponent of its adoption as a means to circumvent the mainstream Japanese press."
2. Ishiguro, Tomoko (October 2019). "Daisuke Tsuda". Axis. Vol. 201. p. 71. ISSN 0285-8223. ProQuest 2303174793.
  The abstract notes: "The perspective of artistic director Daisuke Tsuda that understand the necessity of an approach to free up the age of deadlock, and that events as media have great power in that respect is examined. Tsuda may be called a hero of the Internet era, and his new ideas that fully utilize the media and his ability to take action such as reporting symposiums via Twitter have given him quite a reputation. As he composes music, his network is broad. Although his contact with the fields of art and design is not strong, requests for attending panel discussions with artists and designers wanting to hear his story are not few. The unusual matching of Tsuda and artists brought moments of new discoveries and learning experiences to both sides. Thus, journalists and the media should learn how to build relationships between the creativity of the artists and the reality at the venue."
3. "女性議員の比率向上へ街頭演説　津田大介氏ら" [Street speech to increase the ratio of female lawmakers: Daisuke Tsuda and others]. The Nikkei (in Japanese). 2019-04-10. Archived from the original on 2019-04-11. Retrieved 2024-10-20.
  The article notes: "女性議員の比率向上をめざして活動するパリテ・キャンペーン実行委員会は10日、女性の参政権行使73周年を記念し、東京と大阪で街頭宣伝活動を実施した。東京ではジャーナリストの津田大介氏が演説し「男性も具体的な行動を始める必要がある」と述べた。"
  From Google Translate: "The Parity Campaign Executive Committee, which works to increase the ratio of female lawmakers, held street campaigns in Tokyo and Osaka on the 10th to commemorate the 73rd anniversary of women's suffrage. In Tokyo, journalist Daisuke Tsuda gave a speech, saying, "Men also need to start taking concrete action.""
4. "津田氏が芸術監督に就任　19年あいちトリエンナーレ" [Tsuda appointed artistic director of the 2019 Aichi Triennale]. The Nikkei (in Japanese). 2017-08-04. Archived from the original on 2017-08-04. Retrieved 2024-10-20.
  The article notes: "３年に１度開く国際芸術祭「あいちトリエンナーレ」の2019年の芸術監督にジャーナリストの津田大介氏（43）が１日付で就任した。"
  From Google Translate: "Journalist Daisuke Tsuda (43) was appointed artistic director of the 2019 Aichi Triennale, an international art festival held every three years, effective from the 1st."
5. "芸術監督に津田大介氏　あいちトリエンナーレ2019" [Daisuke Tsuda appointed artistic director of Aichi Triennale 2019]. The Nikkei (in Japanese). 2017-07-19. Archived from the original on 2017-07-21. Retrieved 2024-10-20.
  The article notes: "愛知県は18日、３年に１度開く国際芸術祭「あいちトリエンナーレ2019」の芸術監督に、ジャーナリストで早大教授の津田大介氏（43）が決まったと発表した。就任は８月１日付。芸術分野に詳し…"
  From Google Translate: "Aichi Prefecture announced on the 18th that journalist and Waseda University professor Daisuke Tsuda (43) has been appointed artistic director of the Aichi Triennale 2019, an international art festival held every three years. He will take up his post on August 1st. He is well versed in the arts..."
6. "ウェブで政治参加促す　津田大介さん（殻を破れ）政治家は「ツール」　誰でも動かせる" [Encouraging political participation through the web - Daisuke Tsuda (Break out of your shell) Politicians are "tools" - anyone can use them]. The Nikkei (in Japanese). 2013-01-01. Archived from the original on 2013-01-05. Retrieved 2024-10-20.
  The article notes "指定されたのは六本木ヒルズ49階の一室。ドアを開けると、金髪でパソコンに向かう横顔が飛び込んできた。名刺を交換すると、事務所の住所は庶民的な若者の街、高円寺。話してみると、印象はそちらに近い。ウェブと政治の関係について新たな取り組みを提唱するジャーナリスト、津田大介さん（39）だ。"
  From Google Translate: "The designated room was on the 49th floor of Roppongi Hills. When I opened the door, I was greeted by a profile of a blonde man working at a computer. After exchanging business cards, I learned that his office address was in Koenji, a popular young people's town. When we talked, I got the impression that he was close to that. He is Daisuke Tsuda (39), a journalist who advocates a new approach to the relationship between the web and politics."
7. "Dream HEART vol.323　ジャーナリスト・津田大介さん" [Dream HEART vol.323 Journalist Daisuke Tsuda] (in Japanese). Tokyo FM. 2019-06-08. Archived from the original on 2021-10-25. Retrieved 2024-10-20.
  The interviews contains biographical coverage of the subject. The source notes: "今週ゲストにお迎えしたのは、今年の8月1日から開催される「あいちトリエンナーレ2019」の芸術監督に抜擢された、ジャーナリスト・津田大介さんです。津田大介さんは、1973年東京都のご出身。早稲田大学社会科学部をご卒業後、メディアとジャーナリズム、著作権、コンテンツビジネス、表現の自由などを専門分野として執筆活動を行っていらっしゃいます。近年は地域の振興、社会起業、テクノロジーが社会をどのように変えるかをテーマに取材を続けていらっしゃいます。2013年、世界経済フォーラム（ダボス会議）の「ヤング・グローバル・リーダー」に選出。現在は、早稲田大学文学学術院教授、一般社団法人インターネットユーザー協会の代表理事でもいらっしゃいます。"
  From Google Translate: "This week's guest is journalist Daisuke Tsuda, who was appointed artistic director of the Aichi Triennale 2019, which will be held from 1 August this year. Daisuke Tsuda was born in Tokyo in 1973. After graduating from the Faculty of Social Sciences at Waseda University, he has been writing about media and journalism, copyright, content business, and freedom of expression. In recent years, he has continued to cover themes such as regional development, social entrepreneurship, and how technology will change society. In 2013, he was selected as a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum (Davos Conference). He is currently a professor at the Faculty of Letters, Arts and Sciences at Waseda University and the representative director of the Internet Users Association."
8. "ユーチューブ「ポリタスTV」などで活躍する津田大介氏を囲む! 上田市の上田染谷丘高校を昭和38年に卒業した同級生が青木村で同級会！" [Surrounded by Daisuke Tsuda, who is active on YouTube "Politas TV" and other programs! Classmates who graduated from Ueda Someyaoka High School in Ueda City in 1963 hold a class reunion in Aoki Village!]. 東信ジャーナル [Toshin Journal] (in Japanese). 2023-03-12. Archived from the original on 2023-12-07. Retrieved 2024-10-20.
  The article notes: "津田大介さんは１９７３年生まれ。ジャーナリスト、メディア・アクティビストとして活躍。ユーチューブ「ポリタスＴＶ」の編集長として政治、経済、芸能など様々な分野の人と対談し、人気上昇中。メディアとジャーナリズム、テクノロジーと社会、表現の自由とネット上の人権侵害、地域課題解決と行政の文化事業、著作権とコンテンツビジネスなどを専門分野として執筆、取材活動を行っている。２０１２年から２０２０年まで放送されたＮＨＫラジオ主婦向け情報ワイド番組「すっぴん」に２０１３年から２０１５年まで担当。"
  From Google Translate: "Daisuke Tsuda was born in 1973. He is active as a journalist and media activist. As editor-in-chief of the YouTube channel "Politus TV," he has been interviewing people from various fields such as politics, economics, and entertainment, and his popularity is on the rise. He writes and reports on topics such as media and journalism, technology and society, freedom of expression and human rights violations on the Internet, solving local issues and cultural projects by government, and copyright and content business, all of which are his specialties. From 2013 to 2015, he was in charge of "Suppon," an information program for housewives on NHK Radio that aired from 2012 to 2020."
9. "新サイト「ポリタス」で政治を可視化する！編集長・津田大介氏に使い方と狙いを聞いた" [Make politics visible with the new website "Politas"! We asked editor-in-chief Tsuda Daisuke about how to use it and what it aims to achieve]. Diamond Weekly [ja] (in Japanese). 2013-07-18. Archived from the original on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-10-20. [ja]&rft.atitle=新サイト「ポリタス」で政治を可視化する！編集長・津田大介氏に使い方と狙いを聞いた&rft.date=2013-07-18&rft_id=https://diamond.jp/articles/-/38938&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 16" class="Z3988">
  The article notes: "7月16日、政治家の審議会や国会、各種メディアでの発言を集め、トピックごとに分類して表示する新政治メディア、「ポリタス」のスマートフォン版が正式にオープンした。企画、制作、編集を務めるのがジャーナリストでメディア・アクティビストの津田大介氏。"
  From Google Translate: "On 16 July, the smartphone version of "Politas," a new political media that collects politicians' comments from councils, the Diet, and various media, and displays them by topic, was officially launched. Journalist and media activist Tsuda Daisuke is in charge of planning, production, and editing."
  The article notes: "つだ・だいすけ 1973年生まれ。早稲田大学社会科学部卒業。ジャーナリスト、メディア・アクティビスト。一般社団法人インターネットユーザー協会（MIAU）代表理事。主な著書に『ウェブで政治を動かす！』（朝日新書）、『Twitter社会論』（洋泉社新書y）など多数。2011年9月より週刊メールマガジン「津田大介の『メディアの現場』」を配信中"
  From Google Translate: "Tsuda Daisuke Born in 1973. Graduated from Waseda University's School of Social Sciences. Journalist and media activist. Representative director of the Japan Internet Users Association (MIAU). His main publications include "Moving politics with the web!" (Asahi Shinsho) and "Social theory on Twitter" (Yosensha Shinsho y). He has been distributing the weekly email magazine "Daisuke Tsuda's 'Media on the Ground'" since September 2011."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Daisuke Tsuda (津田大介, Tsuda Daisuke) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Paradoctor (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Great work on that breakdown of available sources from Cunard, I find it thoroughly convincing that sufficient sources exist to merit a keep. Absurdum4242 (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article subject satisfies WP:NPEOPLE based on the source quotes displayed above by Cunard. Left guide (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing alert. The personal request to help Keep an article alive in an AfD discussion is a clear & blatant case of canvassing. User Left guide should be penalized and Cunard should not have responded, since none of the few permissible exceptions applies. -The Gnome (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't canvassing. I had no intention of influencing them to !vote a certain way, but simply to request to assess the sources. I have seen their translation work on other AfDs, and they often !vote delete also. Can you indicate where in that message I asked them to !vote keep? You can't and you won't because I didn't. Please stop with the bad-faith WP:ASPERSIONS. Left guide (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:APPNOTE: Appropriate notifications on the user talk pages of concerned editors…include:
*Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
*Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
You can go through Cunard's edits and it's clear they are a regular AfD participant who has substantially made edits relating to the topic of translating sources from foreign languages.
*Editors known for expertise in the field
Cunard is an editor known for their expertise in the field of translating sources at AfDs. Left guide (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous excuses. Cunard is not an expert in "translating sources". Cunard is usually doing excellent work locating sources, which are then, if needed, google-translated. But the guideline demands expertise in the field of the article's subject, in which Cunard is not. Also, Cunard has not made any edits to the article, let alone "substantial edits." And Cunard has not participated in any discussion related to the article's subject. If anything, Cunard is well known in the AfD pages for providing sources in support of Keep. And you have been the strongest and most persistent supporter of Keep in this AfD. (I have no horse in this specific race.) You have engaged in canvassing and the least you could do is to admit it and see how or if we can move on. -The Gnome (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC) Modified at 12:17 after subsequent replies were made. Left guide (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Cunard does not always !vote keep, and secondly, where in that message did I ask Cunard to !vote keep? You still haven't answered that question. Left guide (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There in no need to explicitly demand help to Keep. Take my advice and admit the blatantly evident canvassing. You are only making things worse for yourself. -The Gnome (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I refuse to succumb to your WP:GASLIGHTING. Left guide (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can just agree to disagree and let others judge and interpret the situation. I don't give a fuck anymore. Left guide (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: clear & blatant case of canvassing Strong disagree. Left guide made one request, which was neutrally worded, short, and to the point. It fails all the criteria for WP:INAPPNOTE. What you list as "exceptions" is the opposite: a list of positive criteria. While satisfying them is desirable, there is nothing in the guideline that says these criteria are exhaustive. Left guide's request was in keeping with the spirit of the guideline.

On the other hand, your demand here that Left guide be penalized actually goes against the guideline: politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices (my emphasis). I suggest you drop it. If you don't, take it to ANI. You may want to consider that carefully, though. Paradoctor (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree all you want, Paradoctor. When a contributor, call them L, to an AfD comes on strongly in favor of one choice, here, to Keep, and requests the assistance of another contributor, call them C, who are known for their well-deserved ability to locate sources supporting L's choice, that is an invitation done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. Chapter and verse. I too have asked other editors to participate in discussions I started but always I invited everyone who had been involved one way or the other. Not only one editor and not only those who "agreed" with me. We either care for neutrality or we don't. The rest is noise. I'm taking the time to explain my position in details only to help Left guide understand, and get of their "don't-give-a-fuck" mode. Take care of your boomerang. -The Gnome (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

who are known Not to me. You better prove this accusation with hard evidence.

Meanwhile, I'll leave you with this thought: Notability correlates with the number of sources available. So you have to prove not only that someone locating additional sources tends to increase keep likelihood, you need to prove that they intentionally and improperly disregard existing sources lending support against. If you could do that, you should have reported Cunard for it.

taking the time to explain my position ↔ User Left guide should be penalized One of these is not like the other. Paradoctor (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Disagree all you want could reasonably be called a don't-give-a-fuck attitude. Paradoctor (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that an editor is "known for their well-deserved ability to locate sources," i.e. that they're doing good Wikipedia work, is an "accusation"? You are incoherent. -The Gnome (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that was not an accusation, then you agree that Cunard work is not biased WRT to deletion discussion outcomes.

So all Left guide did was ask for the opinion of a neutral contributor, whose !votes are based on facts and comply with policy.

That is exactly how it should be. Paradoctor (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As expected, you continue to fail rather spectacularly in your understanding. But do carry on. -The Gnome (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While Cunard is probably most well-known in AFDLand for their ability to track down foreign language sources for articles being discussed, they do vote "Delete", I'd guess about 1 out of 6 times they participate in an AFD. There is that AFD tool that could give you a better estimate of that percentage. While I don't think that talk page comment was 100% neutral, it doesn't explicitly ask Cunard to vote a certain way or to help "save" the article. I can see how it could be seen as canvassing but I think bringing it up here is sufficient and the closer can take it into consideration, it's not severe enough to require any sanctions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring more than a modicum of sanity in this rigmarole. -The Gnome (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Left guide wrote on my talk page:
Hello Cunard, you seem to have good ability with interpreting and translating foreign language sources at AfDs, would you mind taking a look at WP:Articles for deletion/Daisuke Tsuda (YouTuber) and providing an assessment of the many ja.wiki sources? It would be helpful for determining consensus, thanks.
This is a neutrally worded request to review the Japanese-language sources. If I had found insufficient coverage in reliable sources, I would have either supported deletion or abstained if I didn't feel confident in my assessment. In many AfDs, I've supported deletions or alternatives to deletion like merging or redirecting when a subject is not notable. I disclosed the request in the first sentence of my comment so that the closing admin and AfD participants would be aware of how I found the discussion and could take that into account.
For a foreign-language subject, it is good practice to ask editors with expertise in foreign languages to review and search for foreign-language sources. Because Left guide reached out to me, I was able to find numerous Japanese-language sources about Daisuke Tsuda which no other editor had presented. It is likely that these new sources will convince AfD participants that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. This is a good outcome for the encyclopedia.
If Left guide had not reached out to me, the article likely would have been deleted because no one had the expertise to find and present Japanese-language sources about Daisuke Tsuda. This would have been a bad outcome for the encyclopedia.
As such, a neutral notification of a single user does not violate Wikipedia:Canvassing. Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification says:
An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:
- On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:
  Editors known for expertise in the field
I am an editor "known for expertise in the field" through—as Liz wrote—my "ability to track down foreign language sources for articles being discussed". I agree with Paradoctor, the AfD nominator, who wrote "all Left guide did was ask for the opinion of a neutral contributor, whose !votes are based on facts and comply with policy". I encourage Left guide and other editors to continue reaching out to me if they need help with searches for foreign-language sources.
Cunard (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, as it happens, we differ in our views of how an AfD process should be structured and discharged. And being well known in AfDland for tracking down sources is not the kind of expertise the canvassing guideline is referring to - and you know it. It's about expertise on the subject discussed. Anyway, nothing in all of this affects in the least my view that you are doing continuously solid work in the AfD realm. -The Gnome (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following the introduction of the additional sources, as above. -The Gnome (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sanity Paradoctor (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are so far off, you're not even wrong. -The Gnome (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Kumar (racing driver)

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

Fails GNG as they have only competed in domestic categories (despite the success listed in the tables, none of the championships meet GNG for articles about them), is in clear violation of COI and reads like promotional material MSportWiki (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. MSportWiki (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Junk article, no claim of significance, no indication of notability. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Palmer (racing driver)

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

Fails GNG as a low-level domestic Australian amateur racing driver who achieved no notable success, and none of the sources are appropriate (one primary, one social media and one from a business register). MSportWiki (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. MSportWiki (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Sourcing is poor. LibStar (talk) 05:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Moscaritolo

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

Fails WP:NBIO, effectively zero reliable and secondary sources. Brandon (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Computing. Brandon (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t delete. Vincent MOSCARITOLO made a significant contribution to the end to end cryptography used by modern messaging systems today.

He is still active, publishing on Substack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4th-amendment (talk • contribs) 12:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting issue resolved.

you might have posted on wrong thread 4th-amendment, this is for a nightclub shooting. Canary757 (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Canary757: the comment was actually posted correctly to this page but at the top, which made it appear misleading in the log which is where you must've encountered it. I was similarly confused from seeing it in the log. I have since moved the comments to the bottom of this AfD to rectify the issue. Left guide (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is very poorly written, and "having a Substack" is far from the threshold for notability. I do not see any secondary sources, either in the article or in a Google search. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is an unbolded Keep in here so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG, page reads like promotional material (violation of COI) and features no reliable secondary sources. MSportWiki (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article but the view that it needs some improvement to remove any appearance of COI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naoto Ueno

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

Does not seem to meet WP:N WP:NBIO. No third-party sources indicating notability. Also severe WP:COI editing, including some that is clearly by the subject of the article. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 02:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Medicine. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 02:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Japan, Hawaii, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject lacks significant coverage to meet WP:BIO Tesleemah (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Obvious WP:COI issues, an argument could possibly be made for WP:NACADEMIC. There are a handful of in depth interviews in academic journals, director of the UH Cancer Center, and while the highest cited papers on Google Scholar are with many authors with the subject in the middle, there are quite a few papers for which he is the lead/corresponding author that are relatively highly cited for the age of the paper. I'm not convinced of the magnitude of impact of the scholarly work and independence/possible journalistic COI of interview coverage is not clear.

Cyanochic (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively. He has 30,000 citations and an h-index of 84, but in a very high-citation field. However even ignoring the highly-cited consortia papers, he still has several impactful research articles as the last/corresponding author (top cites: 576, 342, 231) and as first author (223), not to mention a lot of reviews in those authorship positions (554, 538, 237, 208; 235), though I don't give these as much weight. I've collected some of the more in-depth secondary analyses of work attributed to him as first/senior author below, which might help demonstrate a stronger case for C1. These could also be used to make his research section more NPOV.

Secondary/independent analysis

~60 words
Clinical evidence of graft-versus-BC effect has been reported in a limited number of patients (2/10) by Ueno et al,2 and in one anecdotal case by Eibl et al.1 However, the study by Ueno et al was different from ours in that it included patients without progressive disease, adopted a myeloablative conditioning regimen with demonstrated antitumor activity, and performed DLI in only one case without response.
~120 words
Meanwhile, other researchers think that looking at the top of a signaling pathway doesn't make sense when what really counts is whether the cell is proliferating or not. For that reason, Naoto T. Ueno, M.D., Ph.D., [...] has looked at the activity of a key cell cycle regulator, CDK2, in sensitive and resistant tumor cell lines. They found a correlation between increasing resistance and increasing CDK2 kinase activity, which promotes cell cycling. The amount of protein or activity of proteins in the pathway steps between EGFR and CDK2 do not seem to be related to erlotinib sensitivity, according to Ueno's data. [quote]
~160 words
An update of experience at the MD Anderson Cancer Center with inflammatory breast cancer over the past 20 years was published by Ueno and colleagues [4]. [...] ... Ueno and colleagues found that 71% of all patients had a response to anthracycline-based induction chemotherapy, with 12% of patients achieving a complete response [4]. In addition, [...] (truncated to avoid CV)
~120 words
Experience at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center over the past 20 years was reported by Ueno et al. [87]. One hundred seventy patients [...]. ... The study by Ueno et al. also showed the importance of response to induction chemotherapy. [...]
~50 words
Ueno and colleagues reported that 74% of patients with IBC experienced a response from an anthracycline-based regimen, and 12% had a complete response. ... Many of the women in the review by Ueno and colleagues initially presented with inoperable disease. After induction chemotherapy, 95% of these patients were able to have surgery.
~20 words
Current treatment recommendations for IBC are multimodal with combination neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by mastectomy and then concluding with chemotherapy and radiation. This regimen is reported by Ueno et al. 10to show a [quote]
~160 words
In 2008 Ueno and colleagues published a retrospective analysis of 66 metastatic breast cancer patients, 39 of whom had undergone myeloablative HCT/AT between 1992 and 2000. Data were [...]. These initial experiences showed that an allotransplant-based approach could result in long-term disease control in metastatic breast cancer, but the rate of TRM was a serious drawback. ... In the already mentioned retrospective analysis conducted by Ueno and colleagues [42], 27 of the 66 patients [...]
~120 words, but by a former coauthor
The first series of patients was reported by Ueno et al [6] from the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. Ten patients [...] ... The largest unpublished series was presented by Ueno and Niederwieser on behalf of the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplantation Research (CIBMTR) [...]
~45 words
Erlotinib inhibits triple negative breast cancer as shown by Ueno and Zhang[30] when they generated a SUM149 xenograft model by implanting luciferase expressing SUM149 cells into mammary pads of athymic nude mice. The results indicated significant inhibition of tumour growth at doses of 50 and 100 mg/kg.

JoelleJay (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Keep -- As @JoelleJay has noted, the nominator's notability guidelines omit the most relevant, WP:PROF (a notability criteria that predates and is independent of WP:N) where it is clear that Ueno is clearly more accomplished and notable than the average professor. Full-professor, head of a major NIH research program, at an R1 University, with significant third-party coverage of the appointment: ASCO-Post is the publication of the American Society for Clinical Oncology, so their coverage is very relevant. As far as the actual citation numbers, these vary from field to field hugely, but I can't remember a researcher in any field with an h-index of 84 or above ever being deleted -- medicine is a high pub. high citation field, so the numbers need to be much higher than say Estonian studies, but my experience is that borderline is usually 30-50 in that field.

The article was probably created too early: the notability tags from 2011 were probably correct and I would have likely been on the delete side then, but much has changed since then and regardless of past COI or other mistakes, now the subject of the article is notable; thus keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google scholar has him with an h-factor of 105. He is still active, I counted 39 publications in 2024. While this may be a high citation field, and many of these papers have multiple authors, I feel he passes #C1 of WP:NPROF. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am in the middle of Keep and Draft. In the current state it should be drafted because the sources are not the best and it is written in a biased way. The current sources are not the best, and should probably be removed (the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center source is 404 error), and without them the page doesn't have anything, which is why I'm leaning draft/delete.

But I agree with the Keep people that the academic articles that he has written show notability. The problem is that the current page doesn't really reflect the research he does, or sources any of it.

Overall, the page needs an over hall.

- Bpuddin (talk) 07:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP DCsansei (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per passing WP:NPROF. DCsansei (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Tinnesz

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

Non-notable musician. A few billboard chart listings doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is listed as a RS per our Christian Music workgroup [39], see [40]. This is also a RS, but it's an interview [41]. With the charting single, just barely enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and some coverage here [42]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 04:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria–South Africa relations

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

Article currently contains no sources. Unable to find evidence the topic meets WP:GNG as lacking significant coverage in secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, South Africa, and Bulgaria. AusLondonder (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced for 16 years. The only sources I found were primary sources from the respective governments. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - again, a reminder on WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST is needed. Obviously there is scope for expansion of the article. South Africa declared war on Bulgaria on December 13, 1941, and was one of 12 states that signed the peace treaty with Bulgaria in 1947. Diplomatic relations were then again broken off in teh context of South Africa's isolation during Cold War and anti-Apartheid struggle. Bulgaria was an active participant in the efforts to support the anti-Apartheid struggle inside South Africa (see for example [43]) as well as in international fora. Formal diplomatic relations began to be reestablished in 1990. --Soman (talk) 09:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fully aware of WP:BEFORE. It requires a nominator to search for sources. Why are you suggesting this didn't happen? The source you reference is "A list of positive interactions between the Bulgarian Communist Party (BCP) and the African National Congress (ANC)" which I am not convinced assists. AusLondonder (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources like this one, this one, and this one convince me that a deeper dive will reveal even more reliable sources.--User:Namiba 16:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:NEXIST and comments above. dxneo (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more sources [44] [45] [46] LefterDalaka (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shigakishi

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

Possibly a hoax article. The non-English text given on this article is fake; the Chinese characters given correspond to Prince Imseong, whose Japanese name reading is Rinshō Taishi and Korean name reading is Imsŏng t‘aeja. The references given are incredibly vague; it's just the overall names of some really extensive works of history. Searching online I can't find any reference to this person existing. seefooddiet (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Buddhism, and Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems like a hoax article. This page confirms the pronunciation of 琳聖太子 kanji (what nominator calls Chinese characters) is りんしょうたいし (rinshotaishi). Yamaguchi City has this memorial.
If someone wanted to improve this article I suppose we could make this a keep but I don't have the skills to do it. zh.wikipedia has an extensive article [47] but it lacks inline sources. Oblivy (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Called Chinese characters because the characters can also be seen as Hanja. seefooddiet (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phycomin

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

Stub was previously blanked and redirected but term is not mentioned at target, so currently it does not make a good redirect. The cyanobacteria extract contains other compounds besides phenethylamine (like phycocyanin), so redirect may be confusing. Page should be deleted unless there is consensus for a partial merge or for keeping as an article (though it does not appear notable). Mdewman6 (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I had done the BLAR as "redirect non-notable brand-name product to its active ingredient. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Green Algae". But if the brand/product is so unworthy to mention in the article about its active ingredient, then I agree it's a poor redirect. And if the brand/product contains other active or important ingredients, such that a simple redirect to this active ingredient is conceptually poor, then delete outright as a non-notable topic itself (the specific combination of components or its source). DMacks (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no evidence of notability independent of the underlying chemistry. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basque exonyms

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

Indiscriminate mostly unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, France, and Spain. toweli (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and is consistent with similar decisions—I see no reason why so many exonym lists exist. Are any such articles notable? pluckyporo ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a definition of exonyms given by the UN that means that such lists are not indiscriminate, but instead pass WP:LISTCRITERIA. By all means cull items that should not be there (such as toponyms that are the mere result of orthographic rules in different languages). But such lists themselves are encyclopedic. As for appealing to recent rulings, what's actually happened is that there has been a huge bunch of individual nominations, some closed very quickly, without any notification placed on the page most people interested in the topic would see: Talk:Endonym and exonym. OsFish (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTGLOSSARY provides that a list of words is encyclopedic only when the article provides an in-depth explanation for the significance of such a list (see, for example, List of English words containing Q not followed by U. I don't believe the list of Basque exonyms provides opportunity for such analysis. pluckyporo ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By that definition, a List of Basque words would also not be indiscriminate. —Tamfang (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trim: A few names in the list are evidently not cognate to the respective endonyms, and I'd preserve these. Otherwise, delete as trivial; each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography, okay, we get it. —Tamfang (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The choice of places seems to be arbitrary. Why only cities? How was the set chosen, say, for Germany? Selection appears to be WP:OR. Expanding to a meaningful set (tens of thousand of names, a typical dictionary of place names run into hundreds on thousands) is impossible due to WP:NOTDICT, without it the value is unclear. --Викидим (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a list of translations is not encyclopedic content. If there was research into the linguistic and historical nature of basque exonyms then this article would be worth keeping but that is not even close to what it is

SJD Willoughby (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Most of the Delete views were based on the promotional tone and the persistent POV pushers likely from corporate accounts. While WP:ATD-E does allow for deleting an article if it severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, that is a last resort solution. The preferred approach is to fix the article editorially, which Bearcat and others here have already done to a large degree, eliminating the need for a "TNT". I see a rough consensus that the current revision, which differs greatly from the one nominated, is worth keeping. I semi-protected the page to hinder IP corporate shills. Any admin may change or remove the protection as the situation warrants. Owen× ☎ 15:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sphere Media

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems to be a push to get this into the mainspace. Attempted to clean up the promotional tone just added by IP but it seems to be WP:TNT territory. Since last deletion discussion, the only thing I see is an announcement of a purchase which is a routine announcement (followed by multiple sources engaging in churnalism) and falls short of meeting WP:ORGCRIT. CNMall41 (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Companies, and Canada. CNMall41 (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Creator was notified via script. Pinging other previous participants @Timtrent:, @DoubleGrazing:, @Robert McClenon:, @Vanderwaalforces:, @Jumpytoo:, @JMWt:. For the references used other than I mention in the nomination, there is a great source assessment in the first deletion discussion.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything has changed from the previous AfD to make it pass WP:NCORP. Jumpytoo Talk 01:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Of course there is a push by the company and their people to get it into mainspace. That is why some members of the Wikipedia community are pushing back. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is an improvement over the previous version, in that it no longer contains puffery. It now reads as if it was written by the corporate technical writer from the company's viewpoint. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Rammed full of "Sphere has announced" and doesn't even bother to hide the fact that it is an advert. Fails WP:GNG. Is WP:PROMOTION 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still keep, it would be quite weird, in my opinion, if a production company which made series for major broadcasters wasn't notable. Previous AfD has an alternative source assessment which I agreed with, and I think the case is even stronger now. JMWt (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment It's hard to assess the prior alternative source assessment as the articles are not linked, but the three most promising sources from that assessment don't exactly pan out. Variety sources in the current article are about acquisition of Sienna, which is substantive and independent about Sienna but not very independent about Sphere. Same with Hollywood Reporter. Canadian Theater Review isn't linked in article and I couldn't find it on my own. What are you seeing that I'm not?
Clicked through a bunch of sources, and they are either interviews or brief mentions, or deal announcements which I tend to think are generated from press releases. I can't find anything with my own searches (looked at Google Scholar, Google news, some targeted google web searches).
I agree in principle a major company with real-world impact should have an article. But at this point all I have is WP:IAR and I'm not sure why we should go there for this article, which seems to be all based on corporate news and press releases. Oblivy (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't look at it like that. I think they are notable because they are a producer of television and this is shown by coverage in independent third party sources. For example 1 is not just PR puff or interview (and I've made my views known on notability and interviews before) it's a piece of reportage by a named writer. And this isn't the only piece available. If this page somehow isn't kept then we are applying a GNG standard that isn't applied elsewhere. Which in my view isn't fair. JMWt (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree that the ~~Variety~~Deadline interview is earned media. That's one.
I'm not sure I understand your last sentence - yes, the NCORP notability standard is much higher and the way it's been applied to interviews is sometimes hard to defend (but the defenders of that application seem to have won that battle).
Would like to see other views. I think you can see I'm not a hard no, but I find it really hard to get excited about an article that's all about deals. Oblivy (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On interviews, my view is that if a publication carries an interview, that shows the subject is notable in the opinion of the editor of the publication. (If they didn't think it was notable, why would they be covering it?) If it is a RS and the piece is clearly more than puff or a PR then for me that's an indication of notability.

Fwiw the piece I offered was from Deadline. There are also pieces in Variety and the Hollywood Reporter. It strikes me that this is more than enough to meet the GNG in normal circumstances.

On "excitement", I just try to assess whether decent publications have covered the subject, my feelings about the contents of the article are irrelevant. JMWt (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why publications would carry interviews is pretty much churnalism. Clicks, views, and filling their content calendar. Printing an interview is in no way an endorsement by a publication they feel the topic notable. It means that they feel it will get clicks. Interviews would required independent analysis of the information provided or it would not be considered to meet WP:ORGCRIT standards. With that in mind, the Variety and Deadline pieces, while interviews, DO provide independent analysis so even though they were interviews they would meet ORGCRIT (see my comments below as these counting towards notability in my opinion). --CNMall41 (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article obviously does need significant cleanup for advertorialism, but making notable television series and films is obviously a valid notability claim for a production company. It's obviously terrible as written — I just had to add wikilinks to its three big multi-award-winning television series (Sort Of, Transplant and The Porter) that were mentioned in the article only as unlinked names, and the article is completely forgetting to even mention other important stuff like 19-2, Bad Blood, This Life, 1995 (big current box office smash with multiple current award nominations pending) and The Dishwasher. It's a bad article in its current form, you'll get no disagreement from me about that, but there's a lot more to this company, and a lot better sourcing available for it, than shown — in addition to the Variety and The Hollywood Reporter stuff described above, there's also plenty of coverage in publications like Playback and RealScreen, that might have been overlooked solely because non-Canadians haven't heard of them, and a company that has existed since 1984 in the francophone media sphere (pun semi-intended) before expanding into English content only within the past decade, there's also almost certainly a lot of coverage in French that would entail trawling BANQ instead of just a Google search alone.
Also, the page was created by a long-established Wikipedia editor who is not known to have direct personal connections with Sphere, so it isn't an obvious conflict of interest by the company (especially since I really deeply doubt that the company would forget to mention major, major things like 19-2, Bad Blood or 1995 at all.) Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - This article does not speak for itself because it does not discuss independent coverage of the studio by reliable sources. It is written from the company's viewpoint, as if it were written by the corporate technical writer, describing what the company did, with no mention of third-party coverage. Reading like it was written by the corporate technical writer is not as bad as the previous version, which read as if it was written by a corporate marketeer, but it still does not address the need for third-party coverage. A reader who reads this article cannot be expected to view the 46 references that this article has been reference-bombed with to know why the company is thought to have corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've undertaken a major push to clean up the advertorialism and prune back the excessive citation overkill, so the article is now in a much, much better state. Again, we're talking about a company that's made a lot — and I mean a lot a lot, like dozens — of the most notable Canadian television shows and several important films in both English and French over at least the past two decades, so basic notability isn't in doubt here, and the quality of the article writing was the only problem. And since I'm Wikipedia's resident guru of all things Canadian film and television, my judgement of the notability status of a Canadian film and television production company should carry a lot of weight, since I'm the person who actually created a lot of our articles about the company's notable film and television productions in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the cleanup on the page. If we can save something that is notable that is obviously better than simply deleting. Putting aside the fallacy of authority, this still needs to meet WP:NCORP as notability is not inherent simply for making films. If you can point out the sources you feel meet WP:ORGCRIT I will have another look and even withdraw the nomination should they support notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No fallacy of authority needs to be set aside, as none was committed. And as for which sources support notability, I fail to see which sources currently present in the article don't, as they're all coverage about the company from reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I misread your original comment. It seemed as if you were asserting your vote should be given more weight than say, mine as the OP. For the references that do not meet ORGCRIT, let's just look at the last reference used on the page. It is a a routine announcement so fails the WP:CORPDEPTH portion of the guideline. Could not be considered for notability as it only verifies someone who is an executive there. Oblivy provided two sources below which are this and this. I see both of these are meeting WP:ORGCRIT. If there is at least one additional that goes into depth about the company that someone can provide, I will gladly withdraw the nomination and do the cleanup to the page, including removal or rewriting of the company-speak just added by the IP editor. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is not that every source in an article has to be of equal depth to establish notability — passage of GNG can be established both by sources that delve in depth and by a group of shorter sources that accumulate in number. So as long as a source represents third-party coverage about some aspect of the company in a reliable source, which virtually all of the footnotes do, it still contributes toward passage of GNG regardless of whether it's "deeper" or "lighter" coverage. Deeper coverage is of course valuable, but "lighter" coverage is still valid and GNG-building, especially since it can be highly subjective as to which side of the "deeper vs. lighter" line any given source even falls on in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I applaud @Bearcat's work in cutting the article back so it's not such a litany of corporate transactions. I also did my own searches again, and found that one of the Variety articles was quite substantive and independent. On re-checking it's already in the article.

Thus I think we have two SIGCOV articles, the Deadline article and the Variety article. That is enough for me to say it meets NCORP. Oblivy (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - an IP editor is playing silly beggars and undeleting most of what had been taken out. So we are back with loads of unnecessary references. JMWt (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I had to bring back those sources because one of them said that Sphere launched a international film sales division and Sphere actually acquires Sienna Films back in March 2020 and not 2022. 148.252.158.62 (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You didn’t have to do this. We’ve all been around the block a long time in these parts. If you are an IP editor working on behalf of the subject of this article, you are not helping your case. JMWt (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and semi as needed to keep the cleanup from being undone. There appears to be enough independent sourcing on which to build an article. Star Mississippi 13:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josette Baisse

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

I feel like this article should be deleted because it's too insignificant of a person to have their own Wikipedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yusuf Michael (talk • contribs) 00:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perhaps speedy given the lack of a valid deletion rationale. Regardless, there is WP:SIGCOV of her in three obituaries, in the ski magazine Ski Chrono, regional newspaper Le Dauphine Libere and regional magazine Chamonix-Mont Blanc, resulting in a WP:BASIC pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the above reliable sources coverage identified above, though I couldn't access the third one, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meet the criteria as the above reliable references.

Udtatika (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Poet, J (2008). "Keeping it Real: The Bastard Fairies". Native Peoples Magazine. 21: 64.

[2] Chow, Greg (2007). "Bastards of new media ** By breaking away from major labels and dominating online, the DIY Fairies become the music industry's worst nightmare". Morning Call.

[3] McCoy, Heath (9 May 2007). "The Bastard Fairies - Momento Mori". Calgary Herald.

[4] "Mohiuddin Ahmed: That spirit of Trafalgar Square". Dhaka Tribune.

[5] ws24.com. "Mohiuddin Ahmed, first diplomat in Europe to pledge allegiance to Bangladesh in 1971, dies aged 80". Mohiuddin Ahmed, first diplomat in Europe to pledge allegiance to Bangladesh in 1971, dies aged 80. Retrieved 2024-10-16.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[6] "Ex-Secretary Mohiuddin Ahmed no more". The Business Standard.

[7] "Eminent diplomat Mohiuddin Ahmed dies". New Age.

[8] "Remembering our freedom-fighter diplomats". The Financial Express. Retrieved 2024-10-16.

[9] "Ex-secretary Mohiuddin Ahmed dies". Dhaka Tribune.

[10] "Eminent diplomat Mohiuddin Ahmed passes away". BSS News. Retrieved 2024-10-16.

[11] "Eminent diplomat Mohiuddin Ahmed passes away". Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

[12] "Ex-Secretary Mohiuddin Ahmed no more". The Business Standard.

[13] "Eminent diplomat Mohiuddin Ahmed passes away". BSS News. Retrieved 2024-10-16.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]