User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:50, 8 October 2024

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 14:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Score
James Shaw Jr.	2 months ago	3	4014	1923.73
Okjeo language	2 months ago	4	8757	1619.57
The Show (band) (2nd nomination)	2 months ago	3	6731	1576.91
Visakhapatnam Metro (2nd nomination)	2 months ago	4	6133	1526.97
Silvia Sorina Munteanu	55 days ago	0	8042	1378.69
Selva Erdener	55 days ago	1	4265	1355.15
Nepal Police women's volleyball team	56 days ago	1	5113	1341.42
Jason Emer (2nd nomination)	56 days ago	1	6183	1340.76
Abdullah Hashem	55 days ago	1	3941	1335.48
Fatoora Platform	55 days ago	0	5718	1319.32
Karine Babajanyan	54 days ago	1	3009	1280.27
Symbhav	56 days ago	2	4681	1275.21
Benares brass	56 days ago	2	5545	1271.87
Alockdia	54 days ago	1	7794	1244.93
Navaratnalu	54 days ago	1	4236	1244.82
IMOCA 60 Initiative Coeur 4	53 days ago	0	6078	1243.42
Yang Song-guk	56 days ago	3	6861	1230.33
St. Vincent's Home for the Aged (2nd nomination)	55 days ago	2	4619	1216.3
Lincoln cent mintage figures	54 days ago	1	5485	1212.53
Radio Océan/Atlantic 2000	55 days ago	2	4904	1212.46
Maria Veretenina	55 days ago	2	5459	1210.52
Signature Global	55 days ago	2	4408	1204.78
Kagarama	53 days ago	0	2579	1198.55
Refugee lens investing	53 days ago	1	5275	1183.17
Kang Khai Xing	53 days ago	1	2663	1167.39

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. No consensus exists to delete; the possibility of a merger has been raised, but should be discussed in the appropriate venue. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

James Shaw Jr.

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

James Shaw Jr. should be deleted because he does not meet Wikipedia's notability threshold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praiawart (talk • contribs) 16:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep - The shooting itself, the saving of lives, and the subsequent awards and honors are the notability. I think it's worthy of keeping. Whether or not there needs to be editing might be a POV of how a person reads this. — Maile (talk) 00:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment. The way to fix this article so that it doesn't read like a straight violation of WP:1E (notable for only one event) would be to add more detail about Shaw did afterwards. We find out that he gets a lot of awards - OK. But the article doesn't tell us anything about what Shaw did with his fame, except for "consider" running for mayor of Nashville. Tell us what he's been saying publicly – has he taken any position on crime, police, or gun control, for example? Are there any reliable secondary sources discussing his life outside of the one big event and what he's been up to? Cielquiparle (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep - there’s ongoing coverage after his one famous act. Bearian (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Merge: to the article about the shooting. This individual is only notable for that event, nothing terribly notable about them otherwise. This article has more about the shooting/event than about him as a person. Went to school and got a job, six lines or so, then almost half a page about the event. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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 Puyŏ languages. No evidence of substantial coverage of the language, distinct from its language family, has come forward. Content can be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Okjeo language

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

Okjeo (Okchŏ) was a polity described in the Dongyi section of the Chinese Records of the Three Kingdoms. They surely spoke some language, but not one word of it is recorded. The only information about the language is the statement in the above chapter that "the language is much the same as Goguryeo but with small differences here and there". That is not enough for an article, and is already included in the Puyŏ languages article, which is about four languages mentioned in that Chinese source.

All the references in the article are either paraphrases of that statement or are actually about the Goguryeo language, for which some (controversial) evidence does exist. Kanguole 22:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Although I cannot say if the article should be removed or kept due to my biases with my edits on the article, I just want to say that I don't believe deletion should be an option and at most, make it a redirect to the Puyŏ languages as you say the information is included in the article itself. Spino-Soar-Us (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Puyŏ languages. seefooddiet (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, and Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep: I am satisfied with the sources and structure of the page and think it could be retained as a detailed article. Opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep I think the amount of references is acceptable for the scope of this topic. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep There doesn’t seem to be much more that could be added to the article, but what is in there is well sourced from scholarly articles. Well sourced articles being short / having differences of opinion between scholars is not reason for deletion so long as neutral viewpoint is maintained, and all opinions mentioned.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I can't help noticing that all of these keep !votes are based on superficially measuring text and counting references, but have not engaged with the deletion rationale given above. Kanguole 18:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I mean, “I disagree with what the scholars in the field say” isn’t a proper rationale for deletion though? If you have other scholars in the field that you know disagree, and they have published their work in reliable sources, then the article might breach Neutrality standards, but that’s something you edit into the article, making sure you cite your conflicting sources, not a reason for deletion Absurdum4242 (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
There is nothing like "I disagree with what the scholars in the field say" in the deletion rationale, which makes a completely different argument. Perhaps the offhand remark "(controversial)"? But that was about Goguryeo language, which is a different topic from this one. Kanguole 19:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

very very weak keep - While it's true that much of the article does seem to restate information that can be found on the Puyŏ languages page, the only reason that I would vote keep is because the Okjeo language page elaborates a bit more information than on Puyŏ languages. (especially the comment about its relationship to the Nivkh languages).

Now I'm not sure if the extra details on Okjeo language merit its having a separate article. I would consider voting redirect if the extra tidbits of information were rewritten into the Puyŏ languages page itself. MetropolitanIC (💬|📝) 05:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@MetropolitanIC: I've added Janhunen's view to Puyŏ languages, but he discusses only Buyeo (maybe Nivkh/Amuric) and Goguryeo (maybe Tungusic), and does not mention Okjeo. Reference [10] is a Korean translation of part of the Chinese Records of the Three Kingdoms, an ancient source that would be OR for us to interpret. Reference [12] (actually Miyake, not Robbeets) discusses Goguryeo and does not mention Okjeo. Kanguole 08:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If keep voters could more clearly refute the deletion rationale, that would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep and close As per the nominee. It would seem that consensus is already in favour of the article. Doha Dear (talk) 10:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Doha Dear, it's the nominator, not the "nominee" and they are arguing for Deletion, not Keeping the article so your vote doesn't make any sense. This is not surprising given your lack of experience (20 edits). Maybe edit articles for a while before taking on deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

My error, I meant to say "as per the editors seeking to keep the article." Sometimes, people make mistakes. Doha Dear (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Per nom. No clear rationale for keep presented yet. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Puyŏ languages. There is plenty of coverage, but none of it is substantial. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 17:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Redirect, perhaps partially merge to Puyŏ languages. Based on the article, there is almost nothing (sourceable) to say about this language, whose very existence is only presumed. It is therefore better covered in an article with a broader scope. The "keep" opinions above do not address this issue, which was raised in the nomination; they should therefore be disregarded. Sandstein 09:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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. No clear consensus for deletion currently. The article can be improved, if needed, from old revisions, failing which it can be renominated in the future. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The Show (band)

AfDs for this article:

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

No appearance of notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pennsylvania. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ per nom and WP:GNG. Lots of information here, but trying to verify any of it turns up crickets. Article was written by a 1-edit SPA apparently to promote a 2016 tour, and has remained essentialy unchanged ever since—except for adding even more promotional material, this time in support of a new venture involving the band's front men. StonyBrook _babble 12:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

After considering Chubbles' comment below, and after adding those sources and others to the article, I am changing my !vote to weak keep per WP:BAND #11, which states Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. The Pittsburgh City Paper and Post-Gazette mention the band's album 'having gotten some airplay in Europe' and 'was getting play in Western Europe'; perhaps we can give the benefit of the doubt as to whether the station or stations involved were major outlets in Europe—I did understand it to mean the UK and Ireland, so a large enough coverage area is involved. And while we don't exactly have the WP:3REFS necessary to satisfy the letter of the above guideline and WP:NCORP, at the very least we now have the promotional material removed, with the rest of the content backed up by multiple secondary sources. The Woodstock appearance does seem to be important, although I'm not well enough informed about these commemorational concerts. StonyBrook _babble 04:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep. The promotional bloat of the article is lamentable, but that's fixable. The City Paper and Post-Gazette sources substantiate the band did international tours and got international radio airplay, which is sufficient to pass WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:SUSTAINED and GNG. Public relations editing intentions are also rather conspicuous as mentioned in the original nomination statement. Graywalls (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment Interested editors may wish to compare the nominated revision with the current revision, which has just been stripped of nearly all of its content. Chubbles (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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. and unlikely to overcome the issues leading to delete in draft window Star Mississippi 12:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Visakhapatnam Metro

AfDs for this article:

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

Never actually took implementation stages. Politician dream. WP:TOOSOON. No developments from a very long time. Also this article says no metro to Visakhapatnam.- https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/politics/040821/no-vizag-vijayawada-metro-rail-for-now.html. Thewikizoomer (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Lots of speculations within the article as well. Thewikizoomer (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Andhra Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete much of this seems to be copied from a promotional brochure. A planned project can be notable but I don’t think we’ve reached that threshold. Mccapra (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep To support the WP:TOOSOON criteria, the user cited an article from 2021. However, recent developments in 2024 indicate that the topic has gained momentum again. It is just that the article has not been updated and lacks supervision in addressing promotional content. [1] [2] 456legend talk 10:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete Largely uncited and large amounts of original research. LibStar (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep - Even with WP:TOOSOON, I believe that some news articles are talking about it bringing momentum to the metro as . I also believe that the only reason that this article keeps getting nominated is due to it not being updated. [3] [4] 79lives (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Per nom and others above. The proposal is out there for 10 years now with no significant changes in ages. The references are mostly promotional and do not add weight in SIGCOV. TOOSOON is hence justified. It can always be recreated if and when notability arises. We aren't going anywhere. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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 03:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Silvia Sorina Munteanu

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2012. Not clear that it passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Romania. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I found an additional source here. I don't think that's enough for WP:NBIO though. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep per Cocobb8’s new source, and also this both of which cover her and her career in depth. Cocobb8, any chance you’re a Romanian speaker so you can add the information from those sources to the article. While the standard is “sources exist in the world” not “sources are currently cited in the article”, having them in there might stop this happening again…

Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Absurdum4242, did you notice that Cocobb8 might have found the source but they aren't arguing to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Liz I did notice that, but also thought that was because the standard was that there needed to be more than one solid source, from different outlets, which was why they were unsure? When you put theirs together with mine, together with the source cited in the article as currently written, you get three seperate sources, focused on her rather than passing mentions, separated by 8 years giving coverage over time? Also, since the deletion recommendation was on BLP grounds, I checked the applicable guidelines and they were that the article ticked off

The article doesn’t seem like Original Research, it seems to be written in a NPOV, and nothing in it was contentious or derogatory that I could tell. That just leaves Verifiability, and passing notability, with WP:MUSIC suggesting international touring was a strong sign of potential notability. Verifiability would depend on whether the sources the information was found in were reliable, and… they seem to be? Although not speaking Romanian I had to rely on Google translate there.

Am I missing something obvious? (and also thanks again for taking the time to walk me through this, when I can see from all your work on this project that you’re super busy). Absurdum4242 (talk) 05:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Absurdum4242, the strong sign of notability is good. Are you suggesting it is enough? They're not quite the same thing. While you might decide to hold off on nominating an article for deletion because there is a "strong sign of potential notability", by the time we're at AfD what we want to see is actual evidence of notability. You're welcome to argue that the evidence we have is indeed enough evidence, or that it's close enough to "enough evidence" that the strong potential for further sources clinches it for you. Those are valid AfD positions. But "there isn't enough here yet, but I bet there is more out there" is usually not taken as grounds for a keep. -- asilvering (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering Not suggesting that it’s enough, just running through the steps step by step. If it had failed WP:NMUSIC completely I’d have stopped there. And if the articles only mentioned local performances inside Romania, I would err on the side of her not being notable, because it’s likely at that stage that there are no sources I’m missing, whereas a verified decade long career in numerous countries, there’s a much greater chance there are other sources out there in the world. Likewise, while they don’t strictly count for notability, there were 40-50 sources with passing mentions of her performances / longer mentions from non-independent sources as well as the three independent sources that I think DO count - the sheer number of them, again over years, makes me think it’s likely that there are better sources out there that I’m just missing, especially since google isn’t great for non-English sources / a lot of arts sources are physical rather than online. Which, again, isn’t proof, but if I hadn’t seen all those extra sources, I’d have been more likely to err on the side of her not being notable, assuming I had found what was out there. Which is why I voted delete for other article which lacked all this. GIVEN all that, I was arguing along the lines you suggested - the three sources seem like enough evidence for me, especially with the added strong potential for further sources. But I’m not dogmatic about it - this was an orphaned nomination, so I thought I would at least take a look to avoid a delete close / re-listing for lack of discussion. If anyone else wants to argue deletion, I’m all for them to do so, discussion to reach consensus is the whole point of the exercise after all. Absurdum4242 (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 17:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Selva Erdener

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

The article uses zero independent sources with significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 15:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Turkey. – The Grid (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

~~Procedural~~ keep: I'll try to find sources if I can, but for now I suggest a ~~procedural~~ keep since this is a very low-effort nomination for an opera singer whose name I can recognize. See: WP:NEXIST, WP:BEFORE TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Here is one source, from Hıncal Uluc's column. Many more search hits exist, but one needs to sift through them to identify SIGCOV. In addition, the SNG about musicians is likely to be satisfied here, due to concerts and records from notable firms.TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@TheJoyfulTentmaker That's not a valid argument for a procedural close per WP:PCLOSE. If you think that there is WP:SIGCOV, then by all means provide evidence of it here. That is what an WP:AFD discussion is for. Better yet, take time to improve the article. You may vote a straight keep based on policy but is there is no procedural argument to be made here.4meter4 (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep Google throws up plenty of sources, over a number of years, showing sustained coverage, but even the first citation in the article itself would have been more or less sufficient, giving evidence of an extended European Tour, satisfying WP:NMUSIC on that alone.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Nepal Police women's volleyball team

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

What little coverage there is in reliable sources is WP:ROUTINE. TarnishedPath^talk 13:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Volleyball, and Nepal. TarnishedPath^talk 13:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
May i know to concrete reason why this page is nominated for the deletion?. Nepal Police Club currently competing in Central Asian Club Volleyball Championship and many people are searching about the club. I think it's more than enough to have page for the club. NiseEdits (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
A popular subject ("many people are searching about the club") doesn't establish notability - independent, reliable sources do. LR.127 (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Police. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete Club-level volleyball in any nation (outside Argentina, Brazil, Europe or former Eastern Bloc nations) generally doesn't meet notability. Nate • (chatter) 23:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Unsure - reason being that I can't read local media from non-English sources and there are some in English which suggests that there may be more in other languages. Examples 1 and 2. I would like to see more good quality independent sources (particularly in other local languages) to be sure the GNG standard has been met. JMWt (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Jason Emer

AfDs for this article:

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

1. It was moved from draft space to article space before it was reviewed and made live by the creator of the page

2. It was moved to draft space by other editors due to promotional tone, it seemed as it was written by someone closely connected to the subject

3. It was proposed for deletion and the final decision was to keep. However, the keep voters: 1 was a new account created just for this debate only (seems like it and it was an open IP, one was an editor banned for sock-puppetry)

4. There is someone constantly removing a section that is a bit negative about the subject

All this makes me believe that this page is being managed by someone closely connected to the subject. Additionally, i don't believe the subject is notable and most of the references are PRs and he is constantly self-promoting on the internet. WikiProCreate (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Appears to be a celebrity plastic surgeon [5], [6], [7]. I'm not sure any of these show notability. Discussion in AfD last time was also questioning the Academic notability, noting that 1000 citations was rather low for his field. I don't see that much has changed since the last AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment: He's been investigated by a few regulatory bodies [8], which doesn't affect notability. This information has been added/removed, suggesting this page is being actively curated by editors, likely for promo purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, California, Illinois, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Emert which is listed here was about a different person. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Abdullah Hashem

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

BLP of the founder of a religious sect. The sect itself appears to be notable but it does not seem that the leader himself is. I think a redirect to Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light would probably be best. Mccapra (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Religion. Mccapra (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Egypt, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep Google searches easily turn up hundreds of high-profile mentions. There are articles from Amnesty International, the UN, and various governments, and dozens of major newspapers that all mention him. Easily meets WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV criteria. For sects with that many media mentions, their founders and leaders would usually also be notable enough. There is also plenty of information about Hashem that would fit well into a standalone article. DjembeDrums (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

ok which three of these do you think provide the best in-depth coverage? Mccapra (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Merge Article only cited one source almost which shows they still need to meet WP:GNG to stand alone Tesleemah (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If merge, merge where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Fatoora Platform

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

The topic in question lacks sufficient notability to warrant a standalone article. It does not meet the necessary criteria for independently significant under Wikipedia's notability guidelines WP:GNG or WP:SNG. Either the article should be deleted or merge with with the relevant parent article, Zakat, Tax and Customs Authority. Charlie (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Websites, and Saudi Arabia. Charlie (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with the proposal to delete the Fatoora Platform page, as it meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines under both WP:GNG and subject-specific notability.

1. Independent Sources: The platform has been covered by reliable, independent sources such as PwC, Deloitte, KPMG, and Saudi Gazette, which provide significant analysis on its implementation and role in tax compliance within Saudi Arabia. These sources establish the platform's notability as they are independent, non-promotional, and provide in-depth coverage.

2. Impact: Fatoora is integral to Saudi Vision 2030, a major national reform program, and plays a critical role in digital transformation and tax regulation in the country. It impacts millions of businesses and has been recognized as a significant development in Saudi Arabia’s economic modernization.

3. Notability Compliance: The article is well-supported by both primary and independent sources, fulfilling the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. The platform's wide-reaching impact, both locally and internationally, demonstrates its significance.

For these reasons, I believe the article should be retained. Njoy deep (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
@Njoy deep

1. According to Wikipedia’s guidelines on reliable sources (WP:RS), notability is established through significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources. Consulting firms like PwC, Deloitte, and KPMG often have a direct interest in platforms like Fatoora, especially when it comes to tax compliance and advising businesses; thus, they are not entirely independent of the subject. Reports from these firms may not fulfill the "significant coverage" requirement since they may be framed in a promotional or advisory context. The coverage from Saudi Gazette could be reviewed, but if the majority of the cited sources are directly related to stakeholders of the platform, they may not be adequate to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements.

2. While Fatoora's association with Saudi Vision 2030 and its role in digital transformation are notable, Wikipedia emphasizes that notability is not inherited from associations with larger programs or entities. As per WP:NOTINHERITED, the subject must have received significant coverage in its own right.

3. Your argument suggests that the article meets the criteria for both primary and independent sources, which I find questionable. However, Wikipedia requires significant coverage from independent secondary sources that have no affiliation with the subject. While primary sources are helpful for verifying facts, they cannot alone establish notability. To demonstrate notability, it is essential to provide multiple independent and reliable sources that offer in-depth analysis of Fatoora, beyond routine reports or announcements. Charlie (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete no coverage in independent sources. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 22:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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!} 03:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Karine Babajanyan

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

Lacks inline citations. Sources listed mostly lack independence from the subject. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Armenia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep - musician who has toured widely in major soprano roles. The article needs work, but it’s not so bad it needs to be Re-created from scratch. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep per above rationale. Archives908 (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on the available source material would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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 Symbiosis Law School. as an ATD. If editors want to Merge any content, it is there in the page history. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Symbhav

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

Fails the WP:NEVENTS, a particular annual event of a law college Pinakpani (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Pinakpani (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd, so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete. 4 sources and all are poor. Source 1 has no coverage or even passing mention about the subject. Source 2 is deadlink. Source 3 has entry and Source 4 is a deadlink. No sources on the page with significant coverage to pass notability and this page also seems like promotion of an event held by law school students in Pune India. WP:PROMO. RangersRus (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Redirect: A poorly sourced article about a student campus event. Searches find notices and PR infused notes about the participants "zeal and fervour", etc. In the absence of clear evidence that this particular student event is of wider notability, a redirect to Symbiosis_Law_School#Student_life where this is mentioned would seem a reasonable alternative to deletion. AllyD (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Selective merge to Symbiosis Law School.-KH-1 (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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. This discussion has had 4 relistings and I still don't see a consensus here. Editors interested in pursuing a Merge can discuss this option on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Benares brass

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

"Benares brass" isn't a thing; it's just brass items made/sold in Varanasi. Just like there isn't a page for "Benares trinkets", there doesn't need to be one for Benares brass. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep Contested PROD (I opposed it).

I would agree that 'Benares brass' isn't a thing. At least, not in the metallurgical sense, as a particular brass alloy. I may be wrong - place-specific alloys do sometimes turn up, owing to oddities of local material supply.

But I'm not convinced that 'brass and brasswork of Benares' isn't a thing, just based on the sources already attached to the article. Is brass manufacture a significant and distinctive industry specific to Benares? Now that's certainly a thing, and there are many such locations where particular forms of metalworking are both distinct (the place is significant to the craft of brassworking) and locally economically important (brass working is significant to the place). On my own doorstep, an article on 17th to 19th century brassworking around Bristol and the Avon valley would be very welcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Merge with Varanasi: Borderline notable at best, and would be much more suitable as part of the city's article per WP:NOPAGE, similar to how Moradabad does not have a separate page for its highly recognized brass industry. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to hear more opinions and also feedback on the Merge proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep I found these sources on Google Books with somewhat good coverage of it [9] [10] [11] Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
The first source only contains trivial coverage and the other two links are to the same source. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Merge with Varanasi as suggested. There’s more context there. This page just doesn’t have significant coverage for a free-standing article. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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. asilvering (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Alockdia

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

Disputed draftification. Fails WP:GNG and geographic criteria 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
at this point, delete User is going through and using some hidden source to make a bunch of unverifiable stubs. It's bad enough when a known-to-be-unreliable source is used, but we have no idea here and the onus shouldn't be on us to figure out what source was used. Settlements are so thick on the ground in this region that GMaps is useless, notwithstanding the language issue. Mangoe (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Mangoe: Yes it's a stub, but hidden source and unverifiable? The first sentence of the cited Daily Sun article says (admittedly using a transliteration without the "c"): "... Alokdia village in Kalidah union of Feni Sadar Upazila ...". That supports the entire body of the stub. The infobox contains coordinates, which are not in the newspaper article, but Google Maps show them to be in the middle of a pair of built-up area blobs bounded by Alockdia Mastar Para Link Rd and Alockdia Rd, surrounded by Alokdia Bitun Nur Jame Masjid, Alockdia Kazi Bari Jameh Masjid, Alockdia Baitul Aman Jame Masjid, and Alockdia Kendrio Jame Masjid, Alockdia Forkania Moktob, Alockdia Pharma and Departmental store, and Mannan bhuiyan Market, Alockdia (or Alockdia Sporting Club, according to the sign), so calling the map "useless" rings false. The 2011 Bangladeshi census confirms that Alokdia is a village in the stated union, upazila, and district, and says its population at that time was 2,769. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there is an uncited source, because a location is given. Where did that come from? Nobody wrote this article using that single news article as the source; my first guess would be that the actual source is GNS or one of its mirrors, but one cannot be sure, and in any case, GNS's reliability is (pardon the pun) all over the map. Likewise, we don't know what GMaps sources are either, and it is hardly problem-free. We don't even know that GMaps isn't copying our names and coordinates into itself, given that they've done so in the past. Look, it's fine by me if you want to rewrite the article with actual named sources, but I'm getting rather tired of coming across these mass-produced stubs which apparently are supposed to be expanded by AfD since nobody else is doing anything for them except the mechanical editors making trivial updates. As it is, the project would be better served if these articles weren't allowed to exist without actual sourcing, because we find too many geostubs which turn out to be fictions of one sort or another. Mangoe (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

comment One can debate whether WP:5P1's "Wikipedia combines many features of ... and gazetteers" and WP:GEOLAND's "presumed to be notable" mean that verifiable, legally recognized villages should be kept, which WP:PLACEOUTCOMES says they typically are, but the rationales for deletion given so far are unconvincing. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment. The cited source claims this is a village in Kalidah union, Feni Sadar upazila, Feni district, Chittagong division, but the 2011 census volume 3 urban area report only lists an "Alokdia" as an "other urban area" in Chuadanga city, Chuadanga Sadar upazila, Chuadanga district, Khulna division. Meanwhile the volume 2 union statistics report has an Alokdia Union in Dhaka division and another in Gazipur division. The Feni district census report only mentions a different Alokdia in Chhagalnaiya Upazila. @Worldbruce where did you find the village-level statistics?
Never mind, the Feni community report page finally loaded. Even so, I think the lack of any reasonable sources about this place besides a trivial mention in a newspaper and trivial census details in a district report ought to suggest any presumption of notability from NGEO can be rebutted for now. It's not even mentioned on the Kalidah union website; the "list of villages" on the landing page has no link and other attempts to get there failed (see image).

If a list of villages in Feni Sadar is ever created we can revisit it then. JoelleJay (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete - one source in a stub basically is original research. Bearian (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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 12:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Navaratnalu

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

Looks like a complete advertisement. Complete promotional, appears to be a political advertisement done in favour of a political party and its leader.

Looks like a pamphlet for the political party. Thewikizoomer (talk) 04:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Politics, Economics, and Andhra Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment it documents a notable political initiative in Andhra Pradesh, India, which played a significant role in the 2019 state elections. The program, introduced by the YSR Congress Party, has had substantial media coverage and political impact, making it relevant and notable within the context of regional politics. --Mind-blowing blow (talk) 07:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete it is indeed an advertizemant for mr jagan Mohan Reddy 2402:8100:21EF:9051:0:0:3D9D:BAF6 (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment - Along with these promises, there should be a reality check on what has been accomplished and what has not. It’s important to keep a record of what a government pledges during an election and what it actually delivers after coming into power. I think there should an article for each term. RWILD ✉ 02:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NPOL - we are not Ballotpedia, and we are not a web host for political parties/ platforms/ candidates/ campaigns. Bearian (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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 IMOCA 60. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

IMOCA 60 Initiative Coeur 4

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

There is no WP:SIGCOV of this sailboat and thus it fails WP:GNG. PROD was contested. Would support redirection to IMOCA 60. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Transportation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, its common practice that every IMOCA 60 has its own page, like the french wikipedia (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiatives-Cœur_4). The importance is given by the Vendée Globe starting only in about two months. Give me some time to bring the article up to speed. V.Glas (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@V.Glas ~~You created the page~~ This page was created in November 2023 and it has had no independent, reliable, secondary sources since then. That seems like plenty of time to find them and "bring the article up to speed." (I don't believe they exist, since I searched for them WP:BEFORE nominating.) As for your argument that "it's common practice," that's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument that does not rely on any actual guidelines, and we follow English Wikipedia guidelines here. What is your policy-based reason for keeping this article? One alternative, if you believe sources will be available after the Vendee Globe, is to draftify this article, which is the appropriate place for it if you're still working on finding sources. Let me know what you think. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

First of all, I did not create the page. That was @Yachty4000. If you are looking for sources or notability, take the French article as reference. I already translated and added some parts. V.Glas (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for my misstatement and have struck it above. Regardless there is now a week for sufficient sources to be identified. As I said, I didn’t find any that fit the bill (and I looked in French as well). But if you find some and they do meet the standards of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS I will withdraw the nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: V.Glas has added several sources. Five of them are to the IMOCA website and thus not independent. Three ([12], [13], [14]) are WP:INTERVIEWS with the boat's skipper and thus primary sources. One ([15]) is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION in an article about several boats being built for the Vendee Globe. One ([16]) appears to be a publicity piece. Two ([17], [18]) do not mention the Initiative Coeur 4 at all. One ([19]) appears to be self-published. And finally, one ([20]) is a brief mention amid WP:ROUTINE race coverage. In short, I still don't see any SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Further input would be of assistance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment the French version of this article has a lot of sources and material, could this be a helpful direction to take this article? If not redirecting would be fine. Dr vulpes (Talk) 01:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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. asilvering (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Yang Song-guk

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Redirect to 1966 World Cup squad. Simione001 (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
I saw the film The Game of Their Lives and it has sigcov on him. I kept a notebook with the content discussing him that I'll have to find. I believe one scene had a player saying something like 'here's [North Korean] newspaper headlines I kept on all of our players' – so it's clear that the players (especially the significant ones like Yang) had sigcov. Let me draftify and I'll turn it into something good. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Draftify per above. Just realized from this that documentaries can count as sigcov, thanks! May be able to write some articles based on subjects covered in documentaries. seefooddiet (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep - played at the World Cup, Olympics, and managed the national team?! Clearly notable. Giant Snowman 18:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep – Due to the lack of sources, the tendency is for it to be deleted, but in fact this seems to be one of the most relevant players in North Korea. Svartner (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please provide a review of sources, if they don't provide notability, then perhaps draftification is the more realistic closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: There's some coverage on page 18 of this North Korean book [21] and in this book [22]. Is that enough for sigcov? Should be notable as the captain of the squad. Oaktree b (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete - "Some coverage" is now routine match coverage in a book jam packed with lies from a country with a wholly unreliable media. The other book is just a sentence. Dratify shouldn't be an option as it is unlikely sigcov will emerge in the future. Dougal18 (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- The film I mentioned above contains significant coverage (as well as a scene that went something like: "Every North Korean from his generation recognizes his face. Every younger North Korean recognizes the name 'Yang Song Guk, hero of the eighth World Cup'"). In addition, there's also another scene with a player showing a book full of newspaper clippings for the players from the Cup – so its clear they were well-covered (and the suggestion that everything from North Korean is wholly unusable is ridiculous – it should be used with caution, yes, but not outright banned). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Well, it's biased out the wazoo, but we have confirmation (from the film) it's not made up. It's a source, that's all. Oaktree b (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep - Per users above. Clealry significant figure in North Korean football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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 12:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

St. Vincent's Home for the Aged

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails NORG. The article contains WP:OR and appears promotional. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 04:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep: Given that there are some sources with definite SIGCOV in English plus a handful like this that provide partial coverage, I'm inclined towards keep. I'm not familiar with the local languages, but I'd hazard to guess that further RS SIGCOV exists. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Pbritti, SIGCOV doesn't exist in the local language, unfortunately. Courtesy ping @Wikibear47: to ask if they found coverage in local languages? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
  Not really. Its a pretty obscure place with not much coverage. Wikibear47 (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Can't find independent reliable coverage Wikibear47 (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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. No clear consensus to delete after 3 weeks of discussions and 2 relistings without any inputs. Closing as no consensus for now (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Lincoln cent mintage figures

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

No evidence of any notability for this WP:NOTSTATS list, fails WP:LISTN. Fram (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics, Lists, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Also nominated:

Merge with United States cent mintage figures as a WP:ATD. If that page is also non-notable it should be added to the deletion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm: Do you wish to amend your !vote, now that the target has been added to the nomination? Otherwise, this AfD could be procedurally closed with no action due to the improper mid-process scope expansion. Owen× ☎ 12:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
"improper mid-process" as in after just 5 hours in a 1-week process, and after the only two responders explicitly asked to include it? Fram (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't see where Zxcvbnm agreed to this inclusion. Once he does, there's no problem. Until then, yes, this is an improper mid-process scope expansion, even if it was one minute after he !voted here. You've been an admin, you know how this works. Owen× ☎ 13:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
"If that page is also non-notable it should be added to the deletion." You are an admin, you should know how to read. Or to keep such personal remarks which add nothing to the discussion out of it, as they are obviously not helpful. Fram (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for sparking the confusion/argument, but I agree with Fram's addition of the parent list. Both fail WP:NOTSTATS, as said in the nomination. Every single "mintage figure" list is clearly just a database and I see no evidence presented that they are independently notable, I was leaving it open for someone to potentially present that evidence. I'm not sure I'd agree it's "improper" since nobody else actually registered their opinion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Glad we cleared this up. Owen× ☎ 14:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
As the creator, it should be noted that I split this article off from United States cent mintage figures per WP:SIZESPLIT. I have no preference for deleting or keeping the article, so long as the same is done to United States cent mintage figures. However, I am opposed to merging it back into the parent article. - ZLEA _T\^C 12:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I've added United States cent mintage figures to the nomination! Fram (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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!} 06:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Radio Océan/Atlantic 2000

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

Non-notable defunct radio station. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Andorra, and France. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cabrils:, I disagree with you. I think the article about Radio Océan/Atlantic 2000 deserves to stay because the topic is notable due to the station being one of the main peripheric radio stations of France. It's part of the radio history. Universalis (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Universalis: It's good you express an opinion here but could you please provide evidence of its notability that supports your claims, per WP:N? This will help the decision making process. Thanks Cabrils (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, for editors arguing to Keep, you need to highlight sources in the article or that you have located that can help establish GNG notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete A search for ["Radio Océan" "Atlantic 2000" -wikipedia] in google news and google books yielded nothing indepth. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Defunct but lasted sufficiently and received sufficient coverage to show it was an historically notable radio, broadcast across 3 countries and important in the Basque Country (greater region) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
There are 3 French sources on the page....to which one can add https://www.media-radio.info/radiodiffusion/index.php?radiodiffusion=Espagne&id=351&cat_id=1 https://www.annuairedelaradio.fr/europe/espagne/ ; this for verification: http://radioatlantic2000.free.fr/history Also significant coverage in Rocchi, J. (1975). La télévision malade du pouvoir ; Urteaga, E. (2004), Les journalistes locaux: fragilisation d'une profession, Harmattan; and ( same author) Urteaga, E. (2005). Les médias en Pays Basque: histoire d'une mutation, Mare & Martin. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 22:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Maria Veretenina

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

The sources used are from organization websites that have a direct connection to the subject. No independent sources are used. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Estonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

comment @4meter4: isn't it excessive to add such amount of maintenance tags, especially just before nominating for deletion? Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Out of experience, I find it useful to tag problems relevant to an AFD to help guide talking points in an AFD discussion. It may aid article improvements during an AFD if a rescue is attempted, or it helps others identify sourcing problems that may confirm a lack of notability. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Some sources I managed to find: appearances on national TV and radio [23] (not original but appearance in ETV ), [24] [25] (Raadio 4) and reviews on Sirp [26] [27] and marriage. I made the search with "Maria Veretenina", but the search should be done in Russian, I think "Марии Веретениной". First results from that: long interview and another interview on Postimees but needs a paid subscription. There are more, but this should be enough to confirm it passes GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep in view of the sources identified above by Pelmeen10 which confirm national TV and radio performances and the Sirp reviews, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

keep as my comment before didn't include a vote. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I suggest not using the term "vote" in AfD's. Shadow311 (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
We all use "vote" but it is generally in quotes. People understand that it is not a vote count. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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 12:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Signature Global

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

The primary citations center around the IPO listing and fundraising efforts. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. At the time of this nomination, an agency had withdrawn a credit rating, and no analyst reports existed on the web. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep: The Nominator is doing nothing except marking the pages up for the deletion. They should read and understand the basics of Notability first. The subject passes the guidelines. Faizi Dehlvi (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
If you are familiar with the notability guidelines, would you mind adding them here by conducting a WP:SIRS? Discard IPO related news due to WP:CHURN, feel free to use anything else instead. TCBT1CSI (talk) 09:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Subject certain could be notable, but the sources aren't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete: besides the IPO and funding announcements, there isn't much else to be found. They've hired a CEO... All I find are routine business announcements. What's now used in the article doesn't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete. As with the other editors, I am unable to find anything beyond the usual WP:CORPROUTINE churnalism that's prevalent for many run-of-the-mill companies. I cannot see any relevant sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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!} 01:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Kagarama

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

This possibly passes WP:NGEO but would be far better servied merged inside Kicukiro District due to lack of sourcing or possibility to expand prose here. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Rwanda. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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. Please note that this is a re-closure of this nomination, based on a review requested at my talk page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Refugee lens investing

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. A vague term invented by a company for something that it does. The references have a bit on the company (most of them just passing along self-published material) and the leader, but there is no coverage much less the required in-depth coverage on what this actual is. As result the article is just vague arm waving and related platitude about refugees without even cover covering the putative topic North8000 (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment Whats your plan to get it delete. There is quite heavy block of academic references on it. I reviwed it and thought the chances of deletion were slim. scope_creep^Talk 20:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete. This neologism was coined by John Kluge Jr. and Tim Docking of the Refugee Investment Network in a Stanford Social Innovation Review article and it does not appear to have gotten independent, reliable source coverage since. The Rockefeller Foundation report was coauthored by Kluge and co-published by his organization. A World Bank report on the topic was peer-reviewed by Tim Docking (see page 6), which calls its independence into question. The Bloomberg piece (viewed via the WP Library) and the EuroMoney article are WP:INTERVIEWs and thus not independent. The Forbes piece is a "Forbes contributor" source and thus unreliable. The citation to the Robin Wilson book appears to be an attempt at WP:SYNTH as the source does not mention refugee lens investing, Kluge, or the RIN at all. The MarketLinks blog post is essentially a primary source, since it is published by the host of an event that highlighted the Refugee Investment Network on a panel. If anyone turns up other coverage, happy to reconsider my assessment, just ping me. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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!} 01:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Kang Khai Xing

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

Fails NBAD and BLP Stvbastian (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Malaysia. Stvbastian (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete Promotion; definitely not notable person PPOP101 (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

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

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 __NOTOC__
-Below are the top 25 [[WP:AFD|AfD]] discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters.  The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc.  This page is updated by a [[User:Cyberbot I|bot]] roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 10:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC).
+Below are the top 25 [[WP:AFD|AfD]] discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters.  The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc.  This page is updated by a [[User:Cyberbot I|bot]] roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 14:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC).
 {|class="wikitable"
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 !Score
 |-
-|[[#James Shaw Jr.|James Shaw Jr.]]||{{Time ago|20240914161039}}||3||4014||0||'''1909.38'''
+|[[#James Shaw Jr.|James Shaw Jr.]]||{{Time ago|20240914161039}}||3||4014||0||'''1923.73'''
 |-
-|[[#Okjeo language|Okjeo language]]||{{Time ago|20240917221617}}||4||8559||0||'''1605.22'''
+|[[#Okjeo language|Okjeo language]]||{{Time ago|20240917221617}}||4||8757||0||'''1619.57'''
 |-
-|[[#Cyprus–Saudi Arabia relations|Cyprus–Saudi Arabia relations]]||{{Time ago|20240918091659}}||4||7127||0||'''1571.97'''
+|[[#The Show (band) |The Show (band) (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20240919051110}}||3||6731||0||'''1576.91'''
 |-
-|[[#The Show (band) |The Show (band) (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20240919051110}}||3||6731||0||'''1562.57'''
+|[[#Visakhapatnam Metro |Visakhapatnam Metro (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20240919051038}}||4||6133||0||'''1526.97'''
 |-
-|[[#Visakhapatnam Metro |Visakhapatnam Metro (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20240919051038}}||4||6133||0||'''1512.63'''
+|[[#Silvia Sorina Munteanu|Silvia Sorina Munteanu]]||{{Time ago|20240924175511}}||0||8042||0||'''1378.69'''
 |-
-|[[#Silvia Sorina Munteanu|Silvia Sorina Munteanu]]||{{Time ago|20240924175511}}||0||8042||0||'''1364.34'''
+|[[#Selva Erdener|Selva Erdener]]||{{Time ago|20240924154542}}||1||4265||0||'''1355.15'''
 |-
-|[[#Selva Erdener|Selva Erdener]]||{{Time ago|20240924154542}}||1||4265||0||'''1340.81'''
+|[[#Nepal Police women's volleyball team|Nepal Police women's volleyball team]]||{{Time ago|20240924133855}}||1||5113||0||'''1341.42'''
 |-
-|[[#Nepal Police women's volleyball team|Nepal Police women's volleyball team]]||{{Time ago|20240924133855}}||1||5113||0||'''1327.08'''
+|[[#Jason Emer |Jason Emer (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20240924134956}}||1||6183||0||'''1340.76'''
 |-
-|[[#Jason Emer |Jason Emer (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20240924134956}}||1||6183||0||'''1326.42'''
+|[[#Abdullah Hashem|Abdullah Hashem]]||{{Time ago|20240924221215}}||1||3941||0||'''1335.48'''
 |-
-|[[#Abdullah Hashem|Abdullah Hashem]]||{{Time ago|20240924221215}}||1||3941||0||'''1321.13'''
+|[[#Fatoora Platform|Fatoora Platform]]||{{Time ago|20240925133741}}||0||5718||0||'''1319.32'''
 |-
-|[[#Fatoora Platform|Fatoora Platform]]||{{Time ago|20240925133741}}||0||5718||0||'''1304.97'''
+|[[#Karine Babajanyan|Karine Babajanyan]]||{{Time ago|20240925164011}}||1||3009||0||'''1280.27'''
 |-
-|[[#Hana Jonášová|Hana Jonášová]]||{{Time ago|20240924053752}}||2||3339||0||'''1270.99'''
+|[[#Symbhav|Symbhav]]||{{Time ago|20240924090511}}||2||4681||0||'''1275.21'''
 |-
-|[[#Karine Babajanyan|Karine Babajanyan]]||{{Time ago|20240925164011}}||1||3009||0||'''1265.93'''
+|[[#Benares brass|Benares brass]]||{{Time ago|20240924032526}}||2||5545||0||'''1271.87'''
 |-
-|[[#Symbhav|Symbhav]]||{{Time ago|20240924090511}}||2||4681||0||'''1260.86'''
+|[[#Alockdia|Alockdia]]||{{Time ago|20240925214334}}||1||7794||0||'''1244.93'''
 |-
-|[[#Benares brass|Benares brass]]||{{Time ago|20240924032526}}||2||5225||0||'''1257.52'''
+|[[#Navaratnalu|Navaratnalu]]||{{Time ago|20240926043058}}||1||4236||0||'''1244.82'''
 |-
-|[[#Alockdia|Alockdia]]||{{Time ago|20240925214334}}||1||7794||0||'''1230.58'''
+|[[#IMOCA 60 Initiative Coeur 4|IMOCA 60 Initiative Coeur 4]]||{{Time ago|20240926145632}}||0||6078||0||'''1243.42'''
 |-
-|[[#Navaratnalu|Navaratnalu]]||{{Time ago|20240926043058}}||1||4236||0||'''1230.47'''
+|[[#Yang Song-guk|Yang Song-guk]]||{{Time ago|20240924004333}}||3||6861||0||'''1230.33'''
 |-
-|[[#IMOCA 60 Initiative Coeur 4|IMOCA 60 Initiative Coeur 4]]||{{Time ago|20240926145632}}||0||6078||0||'''1229.08'''
+|[[#St. Vincent's Home for the Aged |St. Vincent's Home for the Aged (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20240925044302}}||2||4619||0||'''1216.3'''
 |-
-|[[#Yang Song-guk|Yang Song-guk]]||{{Time ago|20240924004333}}||3||6861||0||'''1215.99'''
+|[[#Lincoln cent mintage figures|Lincoln cent mintage figures]]||{{Time ago|20240926083533}}||1||5485||0||'''1212.53'''
 |-
-|[[#St. Vincent's Home for the Aged |St. Vincent's Home for the Aged (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20240925044302}}||2||4619||0||'''1201.96'''
+|[[#Radio Océan/Atlantic 2000|Radio Océan/Atlantic 2000]]||{{Time ago|20240925055856}}||2||4904||0||'''1212.46'''
 |-
-|[[#Lincoln cent mintage figures|Lincoln cent mintage figures]]||{{Time ago|20240926083533}}||1||5485||0||'''1198.19'''
+|[[#Maria Veretenina|Maria Veretenina]]||{{Time ago|20240924235614}}||2||5459||0||'''1210.52'''
 |-
-|[[#Radio Océan/Atlantic 2000|Radio Océan/Atlantic 2000]]||{{Time ago|20240925055856}}||2||4904||0||'''1198.12'''
+|[[#Signature Global|Signature Global]]||{{Time ago|20240925083319}}||2||4408||0||'''1204.78'''
 |-
-|[[#Maria Veretenina|Maria Veretenina]]||{{Time ago|20240924235614}}||2||5459||0||'''1196.18'''
+|[[#Kagarama|Kagarama]]||{{Time ago|20240927123439}}||0||2579||0||'''1198.55'''
 |-
-|[[#Signature Global|Signature Global]]||{{Time ago|20240925083319}}||2||4408||0||'''1190.43'''
+|[[#Refugee lens investing|Refugee lens investing]]||{{Time ago|20240926182459}}||1||5275||0||'''1183.17'''
 |-
-|[[#Kagarama|Kagarama]]||{{Time ago|20240927123439}}||0||2579||0||'''1184.2'''
+|[[#Kang Khai Xing|Kang Khai Xing]]||{{Time ago|20240927061749}}||1||2663||0||'''1167.39'''
 |}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Shaw Jr.}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okjeo language}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Saudi Arabia relations}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Show (band) (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visakhapatnam Metro (2nd nomination)}}
@@ Line 72: / Line 71: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Hashem}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatoora Platform}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hana Jonášová}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karine Babajanyan}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symbhav}}
@@ Line 86: / Line 84: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signature Global}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kagarama}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Refugee lens investing}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kang Khai Xing}}