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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:27, 10 November 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 17:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Score
Scott Cinemas	28 days ago	2	4755	1648.06
Giant Records (independent)	27 days ago	1	5731	1640.96
Charley (Andrew Jackson captive)	29 days ago	3	8244	1639.84
Back to the Real	28 days ago	3	5342	1597.6
2007 Gerry Reilly Cup	27 days ago	2	6854	1587.04
Ireland Eurovision Song Contest entries discography	28 days ago	4	8055	1577.9
Şifa University	25 days ago	1	7764	1498.86
Uşşaki	25 days ago	2	5508	1400.19
Kaoli Isshiki	23 days ago	3	20721	1219.19
Kumaar	23 days ago	3	18638	1218.27
Mold-Tek Packaging	20 days ago	0	3461	1216.62
Liangyou Group	21 days ago	1	13059	1197.22
Ana Coimbra	22 days ago	3	7610	1191.82
National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007	22 days ago	3	7373	1188.12
Good Day (BoyNextDoor song)	20 days ago	1	6711	1174.23
Lada Niva Vision	21 days ago	2	3715	1172.5
Lee Du-haeng	21 days ago	2	6529	1168.36
Turkish tango music	22 days ago	3	3746	1155.83
Zainal Arifin Mochtar	20 days ago	1	6144	1151.06
Anna Cymmerman (2nd nomination)	21 days ago	2	6640	1139.34
Kallakkadal	21 days ago	2	4678	1124.64
Arthur H. Marshall	21 days ago	3	5055	1121.86
Yashar Vafaei Mamaghani	19 days ago	3	6757	960.47
DXKS-FM (Cagayan de Oro)	16 days ago	0	3129	952.48
Zoé Kézako	16 days ago	1	3632	932.68

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 16:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Scott Cinemas

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

Failing to find "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" to meet WP:ORGCRIT. All sources are currently primary. AusLondonder (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. AusLondonder (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep: https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/7-things-scott-cinemas-bridgwater-2585607 ; https://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/20307914.exmouth-cinema-gets-42-000-government-funding/ and multiple other sources indicate a certain notability imv; at the very least could be redirected to list of film theater chains (currently AfDed.; same nom.) for example. I DpD the page; same nom . -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC) (nb-Needless to say I am opposed to deletion)
This is very trivial coverage, certainly not sufficient per WP:ORGDEPTH AusLondonder (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete or Redirect Doesn’t merit an article of its own. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Any redirect target in mind? Owen× ☎ 13:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete: I tried, I did look for possible ATD but could not find any. Not List of movie theater chains#United Kingdom, and not even Cinema of the United Kingdom. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:42, 13 November 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!} 08:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Giant Records (independent)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, United States of America, and New York. toweli (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I am a new editor and still finding my feet, so please don’t be mean if anything I say here is not pertinent for an AfD discussion. As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles I added the single reference to this article – I would say that the source is probably not the most solid, but I have done a bunch of searching for other sources, without turning up anything that is very reliable, like toweli. That said, my sense is that there probably are decent sources sufficient to establish the record label’s notability, but they will likely be in print format from 30 years ago and therefore less easy to find. Particularly if, like me, editors are not familiar with the area. I am pinging a few users who contributed to both sides in previous deletion discussions according to the edit history: Chubbles Hoponpop69 Tikiwont Hello Control. The creating editor is no longer on Wikipedia. As alternatives to deletion, one might consider:

1. Merging the content into Homestead Records, maybe as a sister label or some such.
2. Creating a new article for the umbrella distributor Dutch East India Trading, and merging this article and that for Homestead Records into that.

-- SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

If such an article on Dutch East India Trading were to be made I would recommend this article to be merged there. Said article has to exist first though. Since it doesn't, I don't recommend for this article to be redirected to Homestead Records either, since there's no mention of Giant Records there. Given the lack of coverage as well as the difficulty of finding anything about it due to the overlap in name with the Warner Bros. label, I recommend delete. Recon rabbit 17:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd like to hear if there are objections or support for the Merge suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 6 November 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 cut consensus for delete or other ATDs. (non-admin closure) Benison (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Charley (Andrew Jackson captive)

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

Sad story which may be a paragraph in some other article perhaps (but where?), but not a notable subject on its own. Fram (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, History, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Merge with Theodore (Andrew Jackson captive) at a new page titled Creek members of the Andrew Jackson household or similar, which should obviously also refer to Lyncoya Jackson. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep: President Andrew Jackson was somewhat unique in his adoption of native American children. All of these should be kept: Theodore, Charley and Lyncoya. The issue with merging is that it would be too large for many readers. This is a substantive part of Jackson's life and should be kept. — Maile (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Aside. I object to the word "captive". That doesn't jibe with this article or Theodore's. Neither was captured by Jackson, and it seems to me to be a POV slur against him. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Clarityfiend It's funny, after reading the sources published in the last 20 years, I think I object to calling Lyncoya his "adopted son" but that's mostly me being emo and a different discussion that probably happens on generational timescales. ANYWAY, I assumed it would get moved at some point and I am very excited to see what another brain thinks of. My only caveat is that Theodore is not confirmed to have been Muscogee, and based on cultural norms of the time, was very possibly given as a gift/tribute by an ally (see Charley), so the title shouldn't be Theodore (Muscogee). I don't think it abrogates him being a captive that Jackson didn't personally throw a net over him and carry him home--Jackson had possession of a bunch of orphaned babies that didn't belong to him because he was a local warlord running a race war--but it doesn't need to be in the title of the article. But I don't know what else to use. Halp? jengod (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- ADD: We could arguably merge them both into Lyncoya as subsections. I didn't do that in the first place because these two were separate human people with distinct stories and their burial in brittle letters and footnotes for much of the past 200 years was not accidental. They were very intentionally excluded from the narrative. jengod (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC

Clarityfiend,Jengod: Another thought comes to mind here: we look at this through the eyes of our era. There is a old tradition in Hawaii, even now, called Hānai (informal adoption) whereby parents gave their children to others to be raised. One of the reasons in earlier years was because you weren't likely to go to war against someone who was raising your child. Hānai is still practiced there, for a variety of reasons. We don't know the background (do we?) of why Jackson got these native American children. But there might have been reasoning for it. — Maile (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

"Andrew Jackson's Native American pet"? He called him a pet, so no slur here against the esteemed slaveholder, we wouldn't want to do that of course. Fram (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- As bad as that sounds in 2024, language changes over the centuries. "a pampered and usually spoiled child" Merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pet among a lot of different definitions pulled up by a search. Unless we can dig up the year 1814 definition, we'll never know. — Maile (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more input and perhaps a more clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 13:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

For clarity: this is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodore (Andrew Jackson captive). -- asilvering (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Redirect, for now, to Andrew Jackson#Family, where all three of these children are mentioned. Subsequently, editors may want to merge parts of them into a yet to be written article about Jackson's treatment of and relations with Native Americans. Notability is beside the point: these children are not covered by sources because of their individual characteristics but only in relation to Jackson; they exist in sources only as (minor) aspects of his biography. Since Wikipedia follows its sources, we must do likewise. Sandstein 21:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:16, 5 November 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. Clear consensus for "not delete", but no consensus between keep and redirect. asilvering (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Back to the Real

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

Probably should have discussed this along with Reel Tight. Looking at the sources (that aren't dead), the only source that somewhat confirms WP:NRV is an article by OffBeat and even then, the article doesn't elaborate much other than calling the band a success story. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep - Given the concurrent discussion for the group at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reel Tight, the album has some notablitily for low chart placement and a couple of middling hit singles, but more reliable sources for those achievements are needed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep either this or Reel Tight, merging text and redirecting to one or the other. It made three charts; the dead links don't matter as they can be resolved, and in the case of Vibe, the citation is to the mag; and the nominator gave no indication that a BEFORE was performed, let alone if the BEFORE used databases and non-Google methods to look for sources about a group from the late '90s... Caro7200 (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment - The band's article just barely survived delation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reel Tight, and I have fleshed out their article a bit with sources from this album article, though there is very little to work with. That may alter the trajectory of this album AfD, though I will leave my vote as-is to avoid confusion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Reel Tight: now that the target survived AfD. Owen× ☎ 19:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is likely the final relist - Can we reach a consensus between keeping this article or redirecting it to Reel Tight?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Reel Tight: Fails WP:NALBUM, redirect to possible ATD since the target was kept. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Passes criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM for appearing on multiple national music charts. There are enough critical reviews in the article as well to pass WP:SIGCOV and criteria 1 of WP:NALBUM.4meter4 (talk) 19:06, 13 November 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 Gerry Reilly Cup. asilvering (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

2007 Gerry Reilly Cup

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

Non-notable edition/staging of amateur sports event - that doesn't meet WP:NSEASON or WP:SIGCOV or WP:NEVENT. Even if the competition as a whole (the Gerry Reilly Cup) has notability, there is nothing to indicate that this single running of that event has independent notability. Certainly the text of the article, the refs within it, and a WP:BEFORE search for other sources do not appear to establish independent notability. If not deleted, as an WP:ATD, the title could perhaps be redirected to Gerry Reilly Cup (perhaps to a section WP:WITHIN it dealing with the 2007 event). But there is otherwise no apparent sources/rationale for a single instance of this (non-national, provincial, amateur, childrens/schoolboy) competition has independent notability. (By extension I would question the expectation/presumption, in this template, that every annual occurrence of this amateur/teenage competition warrants a standalone WP:NSEASON/WP:NEVENT article....) Guliolopez (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC) Guliolopez (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I intend to create more articles for annual events of this provincial underage football competition, which has grown in stature with each passing year, with counties beyond the province of Leinster now participating. The 2007 Gerry Reilly Cup article was created because when I located the Gerry Reilly Cup article, I found it to be in a very unsatisfactory condition. It was possibly created in 2007 as it focused very much on that year's competition. I tidied up the article and thought it best to create a standalone 2007 Gerry Reilly Cup article to place the bulk of content that I found on the main page. The format of the tournament has also changed since 2007 so the content had become dated and no longer accurate in the way that it appeared on the main page. It was also quite challenging to source references for that renewal of the tournament which happened seventeen years ago. Moresthepity (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note. If it's "challenging to source references for [..the event..] which happened seventeen years ago", would that not indicate that WP:SIGCOV isn't met? And that, perhaps, (whatever about the competition as a whole or instances of the competition held on other years) the 2007 staging doesn't/didn't warrant a standalone article? Guliolopez (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is an unbolded Keep here so I don't think this is eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If the consensus is for deletion, how will data be saved? I would need to add much of what is contained in the 2007 Gerry Reilly Cup article to the original Gerry Reilly Cup article, otherwise the information will be lost. Moresthepity (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Gerry Reilly Cup – As WP:ATD. Under-16 competition that does not establish WP:GNG for each individual edition. Svartner (talk) 06:46, 9 November 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 3 relistings and I'm still not seeing a consensus here for any particular outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Ireland Eurovision Song Contest entries discography

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

The discography and chart history of a nation's Eurovision entries has no relevance to the country's participation in Eurovision. Beyond the songs being Eurovision entries (which are already covered in more detail at Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest), how they charted in their country or elsewhere does not have an impact on the nation's participation history nor its success/placement at the contest. Grk1011 (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Additional nominated article for the same reasons:

The basis of this deletion discussion is based in the following policies/guidelines:

WP:GNG: The list lacks significant coverage in sources, with most supplied references being the chart positions themselves, with no added context. The article does not establish what grouping all of these songs and chart positions together is trying to prove, show, or discuss.
WP:NOTSTATS: The list of one specific statistic about these Eurovision songs only shows how they fared on one specific country's music charts (not even at the contest itself); it lacks context or explanation.
WP:LISTCRIT: The list is a synthesis of available information, compiled nowhere else in this level of detail other than on Wikipedia, for which the membership criteria remain somewhat unclear. The point of the article is just to identify a song's placing? To compare? Why only domestic charts? Why do other articles list the album they were on too? What text could be added to provide context without becoming WP:OR? How is this a "discography"?

Grk1011 (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Television, Lists, Europe, Ireland, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete both per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep. The information contained is relevant to the UK charts more so than the Eurovision itself, which is highly notable. It is also a useful guide to how successful the songs were in the real world. The information is well sourced, so I see no reason to delete. The UK article has been in existence for 13 years and receives regular edits, so obviously has a lot of interest. The nominator hasn't given any policy reasons for deletion other than he/she doesn't like it, it seems.Tuzapicabit (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep Ireland Eurovision Song Contest entries discography. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the nominator's rationale but, as noted above, it doesn't appear to be based on a specific policy. Not one I'm familiar with at any rate. To my mind, the main applicable policy is WP:NLIST. Which would expect the list subject/members to be discussed as a group. And several sources, including those I found/added in my own BEFORE, appear to discuss the topic (performance of Irish Eurovision entries in the Irish singles chart) as a subject. And discuss the list members as a group. As expected by NLIST(?) Guliolopez (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
@Guliolopez:, @Tuzapicabit: I've now elaborated to identify some specific policies. Grk1011 (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
@Guliolopez: @Tuzapicabit: Are you able to provide updated feedback based on the policies now added? You asked for this, so I want to make sure you've seen it and had a chance to respond/refute. Thanks. Grk1011 (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete both. Given the policies quoted here, particularly WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRIT, I believe there is a strong case to be made that these lists do not qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 4 November 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!} 20:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Şifa University

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

I can see from the sources on the Turkish article that it existed. Are universities automatically notable? I guess not as it has been tagged as possibly not notable for years. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Medicine, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment - not automatically notable, but any public university is likely to be notable. This one, however, appears to be new, small and private. See [1]. As such, I would have thought it should pass WP:NORG to be notable. I have added it to the companies delsort. At this stage I have no view on whether it is notable or not. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Draftify: I found some sources (which appear to be secondary) see 1, 2 and 3. The article needs some improvement in general, but I don't think it should be deleted. SirBrahms (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
The page is 12 years old and has had no active editing. Draftify looks like backdoor deletion in this case. But the sources you have found are interesting. The first is a primary source: a Ph.D. thesis. Despite being a primary source, it could contain secondary information about the university, and provide something to write an article from, so I would not rule it out just for being apparently primary. The second source is a listing. That is not SIGCOV, definitely not at CORPDEPTH, and independence is questionable. The third source is the most important though. That tells us that the university was seized and closed down in 2016 following a failed military coup (it was an asset of those involved). The source is primary in that it is a news report, but presents a bit of a quandary. It shows that, on the one hand, the university no longer exists and only existed for six years. Based on that, it is unlikely this ever reached notability. On the other hand, the very event that caused it to close would appear to make something notable. I am leaning towards merge to somewhere, if there is a suitable target regarding the coup. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments! It may be viable to merge it into Purges in Turkey following the 2016 Turkish coup attempt (especially considering it hasn't had any active editing in so long (a thing I regrettably forgot to check)). Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I'd move to merge if it made sense. How would that look though? There were 15 universities closed in the purge, and none are currently named. Should they be listed? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I'd say yes. I'm imagining something like this:
University one, Place, Exact reason for closure (if applicable)

etc.

What do you think? Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
If we have the exact reason for each, sure. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete - Further to my above comment, according to this page Purges in Turkey following the 2016 Turkish coup attempt, this was one of 15 universities shut down in the purges following the coup. It seems undue to add this one to that page. Yet if it is not even notable for a mention there, it is not notable for a page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
That is not a reason to delete - the other universities and the Military Academy and Naval Academy are not mentioned there but are in List of educational institutions closed in the 2016 Turkish purges. If the only coverage was when it was closed down, it can be redirected to the list. Peter James (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:11, 9 November 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. Limited participation, but I see little value in continuing to relist. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Uşşaki

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

Tagged uncited for years but hard to find sources as apparently not the same as https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uşşaki_Tarikatı The source on the Turkish article seems like it might be a wiki or somesuch so perhaps not reliable? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Islam, Iraq, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep: I see various books in English covering this significantly; also two reliable references on the corresponding article in French. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
@Mushy Yank What books in English please? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Added some to the page.

By the way, you have currently opened 27 Afds regarding Turkey-related articles. It is an extremely (and in my view exceedingly) high number for one nominator, especially concerning one topic, and it happens to be very challenging for interested users to find sources and even !vote. I understand you take to Afds pages that are unsourced but, precisely, it takes a lot of time to find sources. At the very least, I am inviting you to kindly slow down your nominations; personally, I would even suggest that you stop further nominations until the present ones are closed. Thank you very much. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep plenty of Turkish sources found but as Mushy Yank says above it’s quite a task to plough through Turkish books online to update the article. Mccapra (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 9 November 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.

Kaoli Isshiki

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. No significant coverage in any of the sources. Two of the three cited sources don't even mention the subject, and the one source that does simply lists her as one of several singers in a chamber choir (she is one of four singers in the soprano section). 4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I looked as promised, don't know yet. Solo appearance at the BBC Proms is at least something. I added some external links to check out. Her repertoire seems off the beaten track, plenty contemporary, and we might want to support that. I found the ref from which most of the article was taken and reworded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
adding: the French article has 24 references. I guess that some are those I also found (now in external links). Will look closer tomorrow, but someone knowing French might be more more successful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep: I haven't looked at those yet, but the English article is now referenced. For me, she is notable enough, having made interesting recordings, with notable ensembles and conductors, and only favourable reviews. She is not a diva-type soprano: that should not be a reason to delete. The article serves many links to music that is not normally in focus, both Baroque as contemporary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
For the French sources, I need help to not misread the French:
1. [2] This Le Monde article says that she won a prize.
2. [3] This is a more detailed review of her singing (not just "outstanding").
3. [4] recital
4. [5] recording --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt I don't think this in-depth enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. The last source is selling her CD and is not independent or significant coverage. The prod-s.com website also lacks independence. The Le Monde article spends half a sentence on her, and is a smaller not all that notable prize. The main prize went to another performer, Richard Rittelman, who deservedly is the focus of that article. Only the anaclase.com source approaches significant coverage (and honestly it isn't long enough to be considered in-depth as it devotes less than a paragraph of the article to her performance). Laurent Cuniot is the main subject of that article not Isshiki. There's not enough here to pass WP:NSINGER or WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia only for those who win first prize? - This is a performer of several unusual recordings, and performances in Paris, Brussels, Proms, ... - Aldeburgh could be added. - Deborah Sasson was kept, but achieved less in the music world. She knew how to attract the press, however. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt This has nothing to do with the evaluating the worth of prize winners, but evaluating the quality of coverage of Kaoli Isshiki in sources. A half sentence of text is not significant coverage, and if the award were significant we would expect more coverage in independent media or academic publications. We can only build articles based on our notability guidelines which requires that we support articles with extant sources that contain significant coverage. That does mean that what journalists and academics choose to pay attention to directly impacts the types of articles we can create because we can't engage in WP:Original Research. That is both a limitation and a strength of writing on wikipedia. The fact that you have yet to locate any sources directly about Isshiki where she is the primary subject indicates that she isn't notable for wikipedia's purposes. This indicates that a journalist or an academic researcher needs to do some work before we can have an article and it is WP:TOOSOON for wikipedia to write on this person.4meter4 (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe that our coverage should depend on one reviewer's or academic's personal attention or lack of that, when her contributions to music are facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Then fundamentally you have missed the point of wikipedia's core policies at WP:No original research, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:SIGCOV. We can't build articles largely verified to primary and non-independent sources. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Informations about concerts and recordings are facts, not original research. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:PSTS which states, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. The issue here is that there is not enough secondary coverage of her performances and recordings to establish the notability of those performances and recordings, and to make sure the "facts" are presented in an encyclopedic and neutral manner. Building an article from primarily primary materials and sources closely connected to the subject does not match the policy language at PSTS. At this point we have found zero secondary or tertiary sources with significant coverage. That makes the topic both not notable, and any article built from the current sources in evidence a violation of PSTS policy on the no original research page. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

(Please educate me on my talk, not here. - Edit conflict, response only to the beginning of the comment above.) I didn't write this article, and probably would not have created it. But now it's there. I don't think we need "research" to agree that The Proms are notable, and that singing all of Monteverdi's Vespers (not just solos) is an admirable feat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Quoting policy language here isn't about educating you Gerda (although if it does that is a bonus). It's relevant policy language to the discussion. Providing textual evidence for an WP:AFD argument is what we are supposed to do at an AFD for the benefit of all participants. I have provided a detailed source analysis below, showing how none of the references constitute independent significant coverage as required by WP:Notability.`4meter4 (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Liz, could you please notify relevant projects, such as Opera and Women (in Music, in Red), - Song is not relevant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Le Monde	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Non-notable award that receives only a half sentence of coverage in the article. The article is mainly about another person who won a different award which is notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Anaclase.com review	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Article is primarily a review of Laurent Cuniot and the TM ensemble at the Maison de la musique. Isshiki is only mentioned in passing, and the paragraph she is in is primarily not about her performance but about the song cycle by Jonathan Harvey. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
recital at prod-s.com	N	N	Y	N	N	The PROD-S company is the production company which produced the recital concert by Ishki. As they are a production team directly connected to the recital, and promote their events on their website this lacks both independence and significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
recording	N	N	Y	N	N	Vendor selling Isshiki's CD. Does nothing but verify a recording exists. It does not provide any information on the recording, and the website also lacks independence as it is selling a product featuring the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
KAOLI ISSHIKI at ruhrtriennale.de	Y	N	Y	N	N	Artist bio at the website of Festival der Kunste which employed the singer. These bios are usually written by the subject or their paid talent management agency. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Ensemble William Byrd	N	N	Y	N	N	Isshiki is listed as one of four sopranos in a chamber choir on the website of the choir itself. This is either neither independent or significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
KAOLI ISSHIKI at ludusmodalis.com	Y	N	Y	N	N	Artist bio at the website of the Ludus Modalis website which employs the singer. These bios are usually written by the subject or their paid talent management agency. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Review at musica-dei-donum.org	Y	Y	N	Y	N	Review from a WP:SELFPUBLISHED non-notable blog. Not a reliable source. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Philharmonie de Paris	N	N	Y	N	N	Performance archive of the Philharmonie de Paris. Verifies she performed with the orchestra in a primary source, but this is neither significant or independent. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
BBC Proms	N	N	Y	N	N	Performance archive of the BBC proms. Verifies she performed with the BBC proms in a primary source, but this is neither significant or independent. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Voce.de	N	?	N	N	N	Voce.de is a WP:SELFPUBLISHED personal website of Hans-Josef Kasper. Not reliable. May or may not be independent. No way to tell with a self-published source. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Brusseks Philharmonic	N	N	Y	N	N	Website of the Brussels Philharmonic. It's the orchestra's performance archive and is both a primary source and lacks independence from the subject as the orchestra employed her. Can be used to verify the performance but is not usable towards proving notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Res Musica review	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This is an independent secondary source, but Isshiki's performance is only given a half sentence of attention. It is not in-depth enough to be considered significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
conservatoire-orchestre.caen.fr/	N	N	Y	N	N	This is an advertisement with ticket sale pricing and links for purchasing. It is not a review, not independent, and not significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
musicweb-international.com	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This is an independent review of album on which Isshiki performs on a couple songs as a guest artist. However, her performance was not reviewed at all by the reviewer who did not mention her at all in the review. She is only listed as a performer on the couple songs to which she contributed. Without any text reviewing her work, this is not in-depth coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
French Anthologies	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This is an independent review in a reliable secondary source. However, the review of Isshiki's performance is only a half sentence long. It's not in-depth enough to constitute significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
www.recordsinternational.com	N	N	Y	N	N	This is the website of a record label selling one its albums. Not independent nor significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

I am travelling, and busy with other subjects, sorry for a late reply. Thank you for diligent analysis of sources, 4meter4. My issue is that it sees every item only on its own, not in context.

Of course there are, in general, biographies around that were written by the person in question or by a publicity specialist, but in this case I see the things mentioned there (studies in Europe, award, performances, recordings) also supported by trustworthy other references. I also don't see any items in the biography (which is repeated by other sites) that I'd consider far-fetched or sensational claims.

I see a singer performing in high quality and in teams, be it ensemble or with other soloists. I like that approach. I see her performing the lesser-performed music, both old and new, and would like to showcase that instead of deleting it. As John pointed out (below), there are different ways to establish notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (music). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I found this Amazon listing which has her credited on all but one track. The main artist seems to be Pascal Dusapin. Then I found that her artist page at Amazon has four albums listed, one of which is under her own name. Here is another listing, from the Ensemble Vocal de Pontoise.Wikipedia:Notability (music) says our benchmarks for a standalone article on a musician include "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." Maguelone (her record label) claims to have released work by Reynaldo Hahn and André Jolivet, who are independently notable, and to have been around since 1993. Overall, (and the coverage of her prize in a major French media source counts too) I think that this artist (just) meets WP:NMG, so I think this is a (fairly weak) keep from me. John (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm giving this discussion another relisting. But right now, I see no support for deletion other than the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete: The article lacks mention of significant coverage or critical acclaim. There is also no information provided regarding the subject's record sales, chart placements, or awards, despite claims to the contrary. Fails WP:SIGCOV.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 07:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Record sales, chart placements: not relevant for classical music. Recordings are, and recordings are there. Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The SNG is tied to the notability of the record label. Albums made with an obscure small record label probably aren't notable. It's not like she recorded for a significant classical music label like Decca, Naxos, or Deutsche Gramophone which have international distribution. We don't even have an article on the label she recorded with which is telling. It looks to me like she is only active with a tiny French independent record label that doesn't appear all that notable. 4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. Comments on the sources provided would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete; fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NMUSIC. I find 4meter4's source analysis convincing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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 22:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Kumaar

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Looking at the listed films, I cannot see where he is mentioned on some and the others I do find him in are not supported by the sources used. A WP:BEFORE finds no significant coverage. There is also some FAKEREFerences used such as those for the awards. The one he apparently won does NOT show the award won, only lists his name as a nomination. CNMall41 (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. CNMall41 (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep. He is the lyricist of many songs and found some articles (reliable like Gaana, some aren't) [6] [7] [8]. Add citation needed to the award in question. DareshMohan (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot find a reference to support the award so a citation needed tag would not suffice. The other references are not reliable. The first is a redaction of what was posted on Instagram, the second is WP:NEWSORGINDIA, and the third is all quotes from the subject (it also shows a byline but posted by Odisha Diary Bureau which indicates it could be a paid placement - not assuming it is but not the strongest of sources). --CNMall41 (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete:It is evident that the subject does not adhere to the WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC criteria. From my research, only have some routine coverage and the majority of sources are not good enough. Furthermore, some of the few news stories available from internet have no bylines which means that they are mostly paid. 111.92.70.85 (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
What evidence do you have to support your claim? The sources found online contradict your statement. Could you please clarify your position?; — MimsMENTOR ^talk 10:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep: It is surprising that the subject is noted as not passing WP:NMUSICIAN, as reliable sources can be found online to meet the criteria for WP:BIO and WP:GNG. However, the subject is more commonly known as "Kumaar" rather than the original name "Rakesh Kumar Pal," which might be causing difficulty in finding reliable sources. The subject has made significant contributions to mainstream Bollywood, including three Filmfare Award nominations (2017, 2019, and 2024) for lyricist work in the popular films Jawan, Sonu Ke Titu Ki Sweety, and Roy (film). Additionally, the subject has won awards at Zee Cine Awards 2024 and Mirchi Music Awards 2023, both of which are highly regarded platforms in India. Based on these accomplishments, a strong case can be made to retain the independent article.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 09:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that winning an award under C7 does not guarantee notability. The guideline says someone "may be notable," indicating that they are likely to have significant coverage. The links you provided just shows the name and the award, no other context. So yes, the nominations and award can be verified, but there is no significant coverage of the person which is still a requirement. Note the specific wording of WP:NMUSICIAN - " and no criterion listed in this page confers an exemption from having to reliably source the article just because passage of the criterion has been claimed."

CNMall41 (talk), I agree with your mentioning of the wording from WP:NMUSICIAN. However, it's important to note that the phrasing does not justify deleting the article simply because "significant coverage" hasn't been found yet, as opposed to the availability of "reliable sources." Additionally, an article doesn't need to meet 100% of the criteria to qualify as a stand-alone entry. The focus should be on adding more sources that provide significant coverage, as the notability guidelines are still met.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 18:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we do not delete something in the absent of sources present on a page. However, if we have searched for sources an do not find significant coverage, then delete would be appropriate. There would be a difference between sources that exist but are not and the page and sources that do not exist. I have tried to find significant coverage and have been unable to locate.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Here, I am providing references that demonstrate "significant coverage." While some of these sources may be questionable or weaker in terms of "reliability," they do fulfill the requirement for significant coverage. Please note, significant coverage means more than a brief mention, but it doesn't necessarily have to be the primary focus of the source material since the article already passes WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG.

"I’m the best caller tune writer" - Kumaar
Lyricist Kumaar to bring back 'Ishq Tera Tadpave'
मदर्स डे:'बेबी डॉल' के गीतकार कुमार ने भास्कर के लिए लिखीं खास पंक्तियां - मां संसार बनाती है, मां संस्कार बनाती है - Hindi language
Lyricist Kumaar calls 'Pathaan' a 'blockbuster' as he poses with Shah Rukh Khan, Deepika Padukone and John Abraham at special screening - See photos
Lyricist Kumaar celeberates birthday with friends and relatives
Lyricist Kumaar confesses about why writers are compelled to fight for their rights
Eveyone Ask Me Hook Line Kya Hai Says Lyricist Kumaar
Singer Mika Singh gifts lyricist Kumaar a diamond ring worth ₹18 Lakh – See pic
Kumaar Biography--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 19:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for providing those. Here is my take as I already reviewed some of these in the WP:BEFORE.

Filmfare, not independent. This is an interview with the majority (if not all) information provided by the subject.

Radio and Music, falls under NEWSORGINDIA and not reliable. The clearest signs is the byline of "RnMTeam" instead of an actual writer; and, the article starting with the location which is where the news came from which is often based on a press release or information provided by the subject.

bhaskar.com, This may be lost in translation but what I got from this is it says he has written more than 100 songs for films. That is a statement of notability, but nothing much there other than that and the fact he wrote a song for Mother's Day. Could maybe be used for notability if there are some additional that can be pooled with.

ToI, reports on a statement he made about a film, but nothing significant "about" him. The article, which is also void of a byline, simply quotes what the subject wrote on Instagram.

Bollywood Hungama, reliable source, but it is simply a bunch of pics from his birthday party. No context and not significant. More of a tabloid piece.

Bollywood Bubble, I did not check the reliability of the publication, but assuming it is, the reference is still an interview and not independent.

Bollyy.com, Another non-bylined piece. Also a redacted interview. A few paragraphs with some quotes.

Business Upturn, cool story about being gifted a ring. Tabloid news and pretty much summarizes what the subject has on their Instagram page.

Veethi], a bio listing which is not something we can use for notability.

At this point I would think there is more coverage if the source above is correct about writing songs for over 100 films. I just don't see it unfortunately. Are there possible name variations you would suggest I search for? Based on the claim of notability, I would love to save the page but we need the sources to do so. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

As I have been unable to find sources that comprehensively list all of the subject's works, I am concluding my part of the discussion here. However, I strongly oppose the deletion of this article. It already meets the criteria outlined in WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. The inability to find a complete work history should not warrant deletion, as many articles would not meet this standard under similar circumstances. Deleting an article simply due to incomplete citations is not necessary when the subject's notability is already established by existing guidelines.

I encourage the author and other editors to focus on adding more reliable citations to strengthen the article and address the concerns raised by the nominating user. Expanding the list of references and ensuring accurate citations will not only enhance the article's credibility but also help in fulfilling the request for additional sources. Thank you for the discussion, and I hope further contributions will improve the article's quality and completeness. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 06:43, 8 November 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. ✗plicit 03:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Mold-Tek Packaging

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

Should be deleted due to insufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies. Additionally, the content appears promotional and lacks critical analysis, making it better suited for consolidation within a broader article Jiaoriballisse (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jiaoriballisse (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 23 October 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, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be a speedy keep per WP:LISTED? 2603:8001:7106:C515:7811:9D52:2B0E:FC2C (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

No. -- asilvering (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:58, 6 November 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 14:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Liangyou Group

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No reliable independent sources with significant coverage. Previous WP:PROD concerns still not addressed after many years. Imcdc Contact 11:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and China. Imcdc Contact 11:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete (soft) per nom. There’s no English language coverage of this company. If you find anything, please ping us. Bearian (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Bearian (talk · contribs), I've found Chinese-language sources that I've posted below. Cunard (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Luo, Yuyue 罗嵛月 (2015-04-15). "良友食用油曾经是上海老大，如今却输给金龙鱼" [Liangyou's edible oil was once the leader in Shanghai, but now it has lost to Golden Dragon Fish]. China Business News [zh] (in Chinese). Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via China Business Network. [zh]&rft.atitle=良友食用油曾经是上海老大，如今却输给金龙鱼&rft.date=2015-04-15&rft.aulast=Luo&rft.aufirst=Yuyue 罗嵛月&rft_id=https://yicai.com/news/4606153.html&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention" class="Z3988">
  This article has a lot of negative coverage about Liangyou's business failures and also covers the company's history. The article notes: "据《第一财经日报》记者多方了解，这家2011年总资产已达154亿元、全年销售收入165亿元的老牌国企，这几年却不尽如人意。食用油是良友的主营业务之一，良友集团原领导曾有“海狮兴，则良友兴”的论断，一位资深业内人士如此告诉本报记者。现实非常残酷，上海作为良友的总部，占尽“主场”便利，良友不仅输给了跨国粮油品牌金龙鱼，在央企品牌福临门和台湾品牌多力冲击下，良友也应对乏力，市场份额下滑。"
  From Google Translate: "According to the reporter of China Business News, this old state-owned enterprise, which had total assets of 15.4 billion yuan in 2011 and annual sales revenue of 16.5 billion yuan, has not been satisfactory in recent years. Edible oil is one of Liangyou's main businesses. The former leader of Liangyou Group once said that "if Sea Lion prospers, Liangyou will prosper", a senior industry insider told our reporter. The reality is very cruel. As the headquarters of Liangyou, Shanghai has the convenience of "home court". Liangyou not only lost to the multinational grain and oil brand Golden Dragon Fish, but also failed to cope with the impact of the central enterprise brand Fortune and the Taiwanese brand Duoli, and its market share declined."
  The article notes: "市场人士分析，良友食用油售价低，是因为作为国企，担负了上海市平抑物价的责任，企业品牌投入资金相对较少。这导致良友在市场竞争中非常不利。"
  From Google Translate: "Market analysts analyzed that the low price of Liangyou cooking oil is because, as a state-owned enterprise, it bears the responsibility of stabilizing prices in Shanghai, and the company's brand investment is relatively small. This puts Liangyou at a great disadvantage in market competition."
2. "中国经济 '99" [China Economy '99]. Economic Daily (in Chinese). 1999. Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "公司建于 1998 年 10 月,目前已开业 100 家“良友便利”连锁店。未来发展目标是三年内建成 300 家连锁便利店。上海良友集团是根据国务院《关于进一步深化粮食流通体制改革的决定》精神,经中共上海市委、市人民政府批准,以国有骨干粮食企业为主体,于 1998 年 8 月 8日成立。上海良友(集团)有限公司是上海良友集团的核心企业,注册资金 17 亿元人民币。主要经营:粮油批发、加工,资产经营,实业投资,房地产开发经营及物业管理,科研开发,咨询服务,国内贸易等。下辖 7 个全资子公司, 2 个控股子公司。上海良友集团承担上海粮食市场流通主渠道任务。"
  From Google Translate: "The company was established in October 1998 and currently has 100 "Liangyou Convenience" chain stores in operation. The future development goal is to build 300 chain convenience stores within three years. Shanghai Liangyou Group was established on August 8, 1998, based on the spirit of the State Council's "Decision on Further Deepening the Reform of the Grain Circulation System", approved by the Shanghai Municipal Committee of the Communist Party of China and the Municipal People's Government, with state-owned backbone grain enterprises as the main body. Shanghai Liangyou (Group) Co., Ltd. is the core enterprise of Shanghai Liangyou Group with a registered capital of RMB 1.7 billion. Main business: grain and oil wholesale, processing, asset management, industrial investment, real estate development and operation and property management, scientific research and development, consulting services, domestic trade, etc. It has 7 wholly-owned subsidiaries and 2 holding subsidiaries. Shanghai Liangyou Group undertakes the main channel task of Shanghai grain market circulation."
3. Li, Jianzhi 李建致 (2019). "沐浴春风成长壮大——上海良友集团二十年之发展认领" [Growing Strong in the Spring Breeze: The 20-Year Development of Shanghai Liangyou Group]. 商业企业 [Commercial Enterprise] (in Chinese). No. 6. pp. 28–31. Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via CQVIP [zh].
  The abstract notes: "1998年,上海良友(集团)有限公司成立,从此粮油企业和职工,真正步人市场竞争的大海;2000年,改革、调整和转型,良友企业焕发出新的生机;2015年,联合重组,打造实力,良友集团风华正茂,昂首阔步。"
  From Google Translate: "In 1998, Shanghai Liangyou (Group) Co., Ltd. was established. Since then, grain and oil enterprises and employees have truly stepped into the sea of market competition; in 2000, reform, adjustment and transformation, Liangyou Enterprises have regained new vitality; in 2015, joint reorganization and strength building, Liangyou Group is in its prime and strides forward."
4. Liu, Lijing 刘丽靓 (2015-05-08). "光明食品集团与上海良友集团联合重组" [Bright Food Group and Shanghai Liangyou Group Jointly Restructured]. China Securities Journal (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-11-03. Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "上海良友集团是上海从事粮食经营的国有企业集团，承担着政府委托或指定的职能，为保障上海粮食安全和供给稳定服务。其经营领域涵盖粮油加工、仓储物流、便利连锁、粮油贸易、进出口业务、实业投资等。集团下属20家全资、控股子公司和13家参股公司，以及国家级粮油制品检验检测中心和上海市级集团技术中心。经过多年发展，旗下拥有海狮、乐惠、雪雀（福新）、味都、三添、友益等上海市著名商标和上海名牌产品，主要粮油产品上海市场占有率名列前茅。"
  From Google Translate: "Shanghai Liangyou Group is a state-owned enterprise group engaged in grain business in Shanghai. It undertakes the functions entrusted or designated by the government to serve the guarantee of Shanghai's grain security and stable supply. Its business areas cover grain and oil processing, warehousing and logistics, convenience chain, grain and oil trade, import and export business, industrial investment, etc. The group has 20 wholly-owned and holding subsidiaries and 13 joint-stock companies, as well as a national grain and oil product inspection and testing center and a Shanghai-level group technology center. After years of development, it owns Shanghai's famous trademarks and Shanghai famous brand products such as Sea Lion, Lehui, Snow Bird (Fuxin), Weidu, Santian, and Youyi. The market share of its main grain and oil products in Shanghai ranks among the top."
5. "日本九州农协与上海签订2000吨日本米出口协议" [The Kyushu Agricultural Cooperative in Japan has signed an export agreement for 2,000 tons of Japanese rice with Shanghai]. 中经网 [China Economic Net] (in Chinese). 2007-12-04.
  The article notes: "报道称，承销这批大米的是在中国具有大米专卖权的“良友集团”旗下的“上海良友公司”。"
  From Google Translate: "The report states that the underwriter of this batch of rice is "Shanghai Liangyou Company," which is under the "Liangyou Group," a company that has exclusive rights to sell rice in China."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shanghai Liangyou Group (simplified Chinese: 上海良友集团有限公司; traditional Chinese: 上海良友集團有限公司) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

If the sources found by Cunard added to the article, then I’m going along with a Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can we get a further review of newly found sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:37, 6 November 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. Sorry about this - not trying to overrule anyone's keep position, but it looks like this needs a procedural close so that individual AfDs can be opened where necessary. It looks like there's something close to a consensus to keep Ana Coimbra but it's muddied in with concerns about the bundling. If relisting individual AfDs, please ping the participants in this one. Thanks. asilvering (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Ana Coimbra

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

We have here a good example of WP:BLP1E, a person whose purported notability is tied to a single event, i.e. a single beauty pageant event. There are three sources which are difficult to evaluate as a non-Portuguese reader; however, they note a) the pageant win and b) a couple of appearances at charity events in support of the pageant, including a (possibly public??) breast exam. This is way too thin to support the general notability guideline, and there are no SNGs that could apply here. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Angola. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Lauriela Martins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (one source)
Zuleica Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (two sources, one of which appears to be a nonexistent Facebook page)
Jurema Ferraz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (one source)

I have bundled the above articles for the same reason, except that they have even less sourcing. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep: I could find GNG in several sources of independent of subject. Check the Sout African here, I could find this, another by AngoRussia here, more here by Forbes Africa, also covered here in general. I could also stumble into this reported by subject's embassies in foreign countries. Again, you could not tag an article for AfD simply because it has less sources. That is the exact use of the template tags unless subject entirely has no traces of GNG. An article's sources being in foreign language other than in English is not a genuine reason for that. Otherwise, at very least, I would suggest redirecting it to Miss Angola, but then with pinged sources above, I go with keep. Hope the mentioned above can be used to sustain the article per WP:NEXIST--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Rebuttal: The Opais link you gave here is already in the article, and I dealt with its thinness in the deletion nomination. The embassy link provides just three sentences on the pageant, one of which is about the judges and not the subject of this bio. The South African gives us a bulleted list of stuff in the pageant handout like birth place and star sign, but nothing of substance for a biography – certainly nothing that could be used to expand the article. The Forbes article says very little at all, but notes she has an afro, a red swimsuit, and an unnamed "social project", but nothing really about the person. AngoRussia, a single sentence mentioning birthplace, area of study, and country of residence, nothing more. These, like the original sources, are shallow and/or in-passing and tied to the single event, which just underscores this is a BLP1E situation. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

An award is not an event, that passes, it’s an honour, that remains, and BLP1E does not apply imv. The guideline does not mention awards, at least, unless I missed it, whereas ANYBIO does. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete: I tend to agree with the analysis above. The South African is a minimal source, if we had more, we could use it. But it's just not enough. The rest are trivial mentions or non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep: WP:ANYBIO might apply as she received a significant award; if other users disagree redirect to Miss_Angola#Titleholders -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I had missed the fact this was a bundled Afd....my !vote was originally about Lauriela Martins. Coverage in Pt exists about her. Ana Coimbra: see above, now. Other: idem. So keep all. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Check all articles included in this bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Speedy keep all as a procedural close. The commenters are mostly missing this as a bundled nomination, and this has been re-listed too many times. It's not clear that each individual nominee is getting looked at as there are certain people whose names have not even been mentioned in the discussion. It's too difficult for the closer to reach a clear consensus under the circumstances. No prejudice against the nominator re-nominating these individually, but I strongly oppose deleting any of these under the current process because the procedure has not worked.4meter4 (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep: As the sourcing shows that some of these subjects may be notable. No prejudice against individual renominations. Let'srun (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Considering she being a contestant of one of the Big Four beauty pageants, the references from Jornal de Angola, O País, and Gira Notícias passes WP:SIGCOV alone or maybe combined. Also, Forbes África Lusófona and The National News offer more limited coverage, they still mention her in the context of broader Miss Universe coverage, contributing to her recognition.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep: I don't think the bundled AfD nomination process has worked properly in this situation. Specifically, actual keep on Ana Coimbra (whom it seems most people are commenting on as the main subject of this AfD), and procedural keep on the other three who most people are overlooking. RachelTensions (talk) 17:40, 17 November 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 merge‎ to Legislative Competence Order. Star Mississippi 22:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007

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

There are no secondary sources on the for this page. There are no secondary sources on the specific subject of this page, as far as I can see. There is a page on Legislative Competence Order, which I think would provide a good redirect destination. SqrtLog (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 13:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - I see no reason to remove it? There is useful content here. I will go look for some secondary sourcing and coverage, but as an article it sticks very closely to the original LCO. Nothing is lost by leaving it. Flatthew (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Have been reading about the order. It appears it essentially governed Conduct in National Assembly elections between 2007 and 2020. That is quite clearly significant enough to be retained. I do not know how whoever wrote this page managed to downplay it's significance as substantially as they did, but I'm working on resolving that now. Flatthew (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Merge with Legislative Competence Order: Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, this should be covered in the Legislative Competence Order article, which is currently a stub. Each new LCO doesn't need its own article, and this can be covered with due weight in the target article. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
If @Flatthew can show that this is independently notable and there's so much information that a separate article is needed, I'll change my !vote, but I couldn't find all that much in-depth coverage about the 2007 order in particular. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
I'll be honest, I can't find much beyond mention of how it has been amended since. I think it's clear it has to be merged with something if it is to be retained. I think the issue is the things it would have to be merged with don't seem to have their own distinct articles either. I think it would be a shame for it to disappear, which is essentially what merging into the LCO page seems to do, given they just go into a table with no information about each order. Functionally merging is deletion here, but that might have to be the way. Flatthew (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be merged to the table; new sections can be added for each sorta notable Order in the LCO article. The LCO article also needs a general overview/history section. If you're interested, I encourage you to work on that article; it can be brought up to much better quality. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Has been on my list for a while to have a crack at that one, this would be a good push for it. Yeah, seems like the way to do it. Flatthew (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
I know nothing about Welsh law, but if you end up needing a second set of eyes, feel free to ping me on LCO article talk voorts (talk/contributions) 16:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Not sure what content here would make another article more informative or is otherwise notable enough for inclusion - it seems the order's changes are almost entirely making it consistent with or enabling changes made elsewhere. I think it would be sufficient to include the order in the LCO list (and a redirect would then be appropriate), but doesn't need its own section there. There may be merit to an article on the original 1999 LCO or the 2003 version (if it changed anything major), but I don't think they'd use anything substantial from here. I'll admit I'm not terribly familiar with the conduct of Welsh elections or Welsh politics generally but I'm pretty comfortable assuming that whether a returning officer for an election needs to reside in the constituency for which they are responsible isn't more of a hot button issue there than is suggested by the dearth of secondary sources. Chaste Krassley (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Merge with Legislative Competence Order (or any other appropriate article) per voorts. I don't find sufficient information for it to be a standalone article, but it could be kept nonetheless in a seperate article. Takipoint123 (talk) 22:41, 3 November 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 Earth, Wind & Fire (song)#Japanese version. asilvering (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Good Day (BoyNextDoor song)

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NSONG... b-side song, didn't chart, no significant coverage in independent sources (all the news coverage references seem to be just regurgitated press releases from the group's agency saying the song exists).

Some of the article's content could maybe be salvaged and put into a newly-created article about the song's parent maxi-single (along with information on the other 3 songs, maybe?) but as it stands it doesn't fit the criteria. RachelTensions (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. RachelTensions (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Earth, Wind & Fire (song) § Japanese version per nom. Nothing came up for my search Mach61 17:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep: here's are the reasons!

Recent Release and Reception: "Good Day" is the first original Japanese-language song by BoyNextDoor, released on July 10, 2024, as part of their maxi single "And," which also includes Japanese re-recordings of previous hits. This context showcases its importance in the group's discography and the expanding international reach of K-pop.
Cultural Impact: The song, characterized as a hip-hop track, deals with themes of self-empowerment and enjoying solitude after a breakup. This relatable subject matter can resonate with a wide audience, enhancing its cultural relevance.
Industry Recognition: BoyNextDoor has already gained significant recognition in the K-pop industry, including awards such as the Global Rising Artist at the 2023 Melon Music Awards. This success indicates a strong fanbase and establishes their credibility as a notable act.
Source Citations: Provide citations from reputable K-pop news sites like Allkpop, Kpopping, and Kpoppie that cover the song's release and significance. These sources validate the content and add weight to the article's claims about the song's impact and the group's activities. ( https://www.allkpop.com/video/2024/08/boynextdoor-reveal-special-mv-for-good-day-b-side-track ), (https://kpopping.com/musicalbum/2024-AND2/GOOD-DAY10), (https://kpoppie.com/boynextdoor-members-profiles/)
OTHER LINKS:
https://www.allkpop.com
https://kpopping.com/musicalbum/2024-AND2/GOOD-DAY10
https://kpoppie.com

WikiNicExplorer 7:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright so: none of these reasons assert how the song meets WP:NSONG notability criteria.
Point #2 doesn't describe any actual cultural impact, point #3 is discussing the notability of the band, not the song. Nobody is questioning the notability of the band, and point #4 is moot as none of those sources are reliable sources, and, in fact, most of them are specifically noted as unreliable sources at WP:KO/RS#UR.
Thanks RachelTensions (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why WP:Convenient Discussions is attributing the above keep vote to me, tried to fix it but anyway.. if anyone is confused it was made by WikiNicExplorer, not me. RachelTensions (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

FYI it would appear that @WikiNicExplorer's above "keep" vote was generated by AI (asking ChatGPT to generate a response for why this article should not be deleted results in almost identical text). RachelTensions (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: WikiNicExplorer has been blocked for sockpuppetry per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nic.cartagena12 hence !vote should be voided. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:47, 9 November 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 without prejudice to merging. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Lada Niva Vision

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

A car that was never built. Does not seem capable of sustaining an article. Sourcing is just a bunch of "this car is coming" news articles which are substantially similar (and show up any time any car is announced), and then the cancellation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Russia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep It's certainly noteworthy, mostly for not being built. This could well be merged to the Renault–Nissan Common Module Family#CMF-B LS section, but it shouldn't just be deleted. Any decision on this article would apply pretty much equally to the Lada Iskra too. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete WP:FUTURE, and certainly no indications of notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: Please don't delete other people's comments on AfDs, even when they disagree with you. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley I did not delete your comment intentionally, I think there was an editing conflict -- if you look at the times we were editing at the same time. My apologies, I would never do that intentionally. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Six months is enough time for more sources to appears. Svartner (talk) 06:49, 9 November 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Lee Du-haeng

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

No secondary sources. Fails WP:NTRACK. Placed 32nd at one Olympics. Fails WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and South Korea. AusLondonder (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Some coverage:
- "[2014 경주국제마라톤]서른에 입문 늦깎이 "아들 위해 뛰었다"" [[2014 Gyeongju International Marathon] A late bloomer who started at age 30 “I ran for my son”]. The Dong-a Ilbo (in Korean). October 20, 2014. (c. 220 words)
- "늦깎이 마라토너 고양시청 '이두행' 런던行 확정 - 경기신문" [Late bloomer marathon runner Goyang City Hall ‘Lee Du-haeng’]. KGNews. April 10, 2012. (c. 170 words)
BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Sport of athletics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Also placed in the top 8 at continental championships. He did not take up athletics at age 30, but took up marathon near that age. Geschichte (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep via coverage above plus more under subject's Korean name "이두행": "이두행". The bar for NBASIC is met. --Habst (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Which pieces of coverage do you find when finding "more"? Geschichte (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
@Geschichte, here are some examples:
"해남군청 육상팀 이두행 선수 2관왕" [Haenam County Office Track and Field Team Player Lee Du-haeng Wins Two Gold Medals] (in Korean).

"이두행, 男 마라톤 32위로 골인…장신권, 정진혁도 완주" [Lee Doo-haeng, Men's Marathon 32nd Place, Jang Shin-kwon, Jeong Jin-hyeok Also Finish] (in Korean).
--Habst (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
None of those two articles are significant coverage Geschichte (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
@Geschichte, how are the articles not significant, especially when combined with the above two as WP:NBASIC prong 1 allows for? --Habst (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
The "Haenam County Office" is not significant because the part about him is literally two sentences long. What do you think significant means? Geschichte (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Sources cited above seem ok, they are about this individual and are in RS. I think we have notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
~~Delete~~. The two cited sources above are routine event results with at most three sentences of (again, routine) secondary coverage. Nowhere close to GNG. The sources mentioned earlier are not SIGCOV enough to overcome the requirement for SUSTAINED coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sources from multiple years apart are not sustained coverage? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  Oh I misread the marathons as being the same. I'll reconsider. JoelleJay (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 4 November 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. (non-admin closure) Daniel (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Turkish tango music

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

I found some sources such as https://www.idildergisi.com/ozet.php?dili=2&ref=1619560991&did=241 but am not sure notable enough Chidgk1 (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Music, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep 'Turkish Tango in its 100th Year' in Istanbul: Melodic fusion of mastery, movement https://istanbultarihi.ist/770-the-tango-in-istanbul, https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=966030 . Please, search for sources before nominating an article. LefterDalaka (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep Like said again, There are applicable references- we just need to incorporate them. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep: This topic has a full book about it: Tango and the Dancing Body in Istanbul (ISBN 978-1000469936). (comment is by User:Why? I Ask Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 10 November 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. In lieu of any more comments, a keep appears to be the consensus. However, better sources have been called for and may need adding to the article. (non-admin closure) Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. About me; Talk to me. Farewell fellow editor... 00:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Zainal Arifin Mochtar

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

No significant coverage that shows notability. I realize that the sources are non-English but doing my best through Google Translate I think this is likely the best source which looks more like a reprint of a bio. CNMall41 (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Law, Politics, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep there are some very quirky expressions and stylistic oddities for an english reader in the text of the article, (that is not encyclopediac) despite some off putting aspects that would lend to a sense of promotional - it is (barring some conclusive evidence of copyvio or similar problem) just notable, in the realm of probabilities, but requires quite a lot of editing. JarrahTree 03:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, JarrahTree. Which sources would you consider significant coverage to show notability here? I will take a look and withdraw the AfD should they be sufficient. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep - I'm seeing the deputy chairman of a sub-ministerial government body, moderator in a Presidential debate, and major interviewee in a viral film. Not necessarily sufficient on their own, but together they definitely support a presumption of notability. Referring to the sources:
- Kompas is a major Indonesian newspaper, basically the Times of the country. The quoted article is an interview with the subject, which as per the article linked was also in the print edition. I'm also seeing a response to accusations related to the film (Indonesian), discussion of his views on legal issues,
- Detik is another solid source, and already cited in our article. There are still more sources like his response to accusations of partisanship,
I'm also seeing a few lower-quality sources (still RSes, but not as established) through a quick Google search. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Pulled open KompasPedia, and it is published by Kompas. Coverage is sufficient to show GNG, IMO. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

These are sources I saw but they are not about him. An interview is not independent and the others are him giving an opinion on legal issues. Where is the significant coverage about him?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement over the quality of the sources but I'm not ready to close this as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:41, 7 November 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. I'm closing this as No consensus as the nominator is now arguing to Keep this article but there is still an argument for a Weak Delete or Userfy this article. Rather than an additional relist, let's just close this discussion. Good luck to the editors who wish to continue working on improving this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Anna Cymmerman

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP tagged for sourcing issues since 2010. Only source is from her employer which lacks independence. Not clear that the subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Note. I didn't realize there was an earlier nomination in 2009 when I made this nom. Apparently un-named sources were identified at an external website during that discussion. However, the web archive url isn't loading for me so I can't see what these are...4meter4 (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep – per WP:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles ("notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria") #6: she has performed numerous significant roles at several notable opera houses. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello Michael Bednarek, subject must first meet WP:GNG because notability is not inherent. dxneo (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@dxneo Michael is citing an WP:SNG which is another accepted pathway to establishing notability other than WP:GNG. This is perfectly fine, although I note that the article currently cites no independent sources supporting the SNG being cited. We still need independent sources to prove an SNG.4meter4 (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, looking for editors to supply other sources that could establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there more sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Weak delete or userfy/draftify if Michael Bednarek plans on fixing the sourcing issues raised, but needs more time. The subject might be notable, but the referencing is too poor to verify most claims at present. PS. Polish online encyclopedia of theater has a bit of info on her, including on one award ([9]), it mentions three news pieces, but only one seems to have WP:SIGCOV: [10]. That article does call her a "star of the Łódź theater scence", and her being chosen to sing at the Olympics seems to suggest she is notable - if someone can dig for more sources, and check for possible OR in the article. Ping me if it is improved and I'll revise my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
I mined the existing citations for a few more assertions, added 2 more sources, and removed claims that I couldn't source. Bottom line: there's very little press coverage about her, but there's no doubt that she has performed numerous leading roles at numerous opera houses. I don't accept that the Grand Theatre, Łódź, or the Elektroniczna Encyklopedia Teatru Polskiego are regarded as non-independent sources (my point above and previously). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
I think I would agree with this. Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek You didn't make this claim earlier with supporting evidence. All that was in the article was the website of a theatre where the subject works which is a non-independent source. A specialized encyclopedia entry was just added by you to the article after you made your earlier keep vote. That is evidence of independent significant coverage, which is exactly what I have been asking for.4meter4 (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I added the encyclopedia as a reference a week ago. Ymblanter (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Ymblanter for adding a good source to prove notability. I see now you added it on November 6. That still doesn't change the point that Michael's keep vote was made without evidence in October, and that I (nor anybody else) never referred to an encyclopedia as a non-independent source which is what Michael inferred in his last comment. FYI @Michael, the Grand Theatre, Łódź is non-independent because the subject works there. It's a pretty straight forward non-independent source. We wouldn't allow an employer's website to be used on an article on its employee for notability purposes in any other subject area. The fine arts is no exception. An encyclopedia on the other hand is clearly independent.4meter4 (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Changing to keep. Given that a specialized encyclopedia entry on the subject has been found, I am changing my vote to keep. Per WP:5P1, we model our encyclopedia off of specialized encyclopedias, and if a specialized encyclopedia has entry on the subject, we should too.4meter4 (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
As you are the nominator, you might consider withdrawing it per WP:WDAFD. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

A withdrawal is only possible when there are no delete votes per WDAFD. Piotr voted weak delete, so a close under withdrawal is not possible.4meter4 (talk) 03:22, 11 November 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 merge‎ to Swell (ocean). as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Kallakkadal

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

This is not a distinct phenomenon, but rather a local name for swell surge used in coastal Kerala, also known by various names in other parts of the world. Presenting it as a distinct phenomenon is scientifically inaccurate. Additionally, this is not the Malayalam Wikipedia. Per WP:CFORK, this is an unnecessary content fork. The Doom Patrol (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Environment, and India. The Doom Patrol (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment Fair enough, and I agree that this would be better treated as a more general topic, but I note that Swell (ocean) does not actually contain the term "swell surge", and does not seem to cover this type of phenomenon. Thus more a case for rewriting and generalizing than for redirecting or deleting? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Merge: The article primarily focuses on the swell phenomenon specific to the South Indian coastal region and its local name, "Kallakadal," within the broader context of swells. This is the main distinction highlighted in the article. I recommend merging this content with the Swell (ocean) and adding a brief section under a new headline to address this regional phenomenon (if required).--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete - it’s basically a WP:FORK, but I won’t oppose a smerge. Bearian (talk) 03:36, 7 November 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. Sandstein 12:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Arthur H. Marshall

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

Ancestry.com and The Peak Seeker are not reliable. Highpointers.org is the official highpointing organization so should not be used here. The only seemingly reliable source here is The Oregonian. Unless more coverage can be found, I feel like Arthur H. Marshall's achievements are better discussed briefly in the highpointing article instead of in its own article as notability seems weak. The current state of the article is certainly not sufficient and is written poorly. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Was not able to find additional reliable sources. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 16:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
@DJ Cane:, please see current sourcing. Graywalls (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Leaning Keep

https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/news/2000/10/29/for-certain-class-climber-life/51015049007/

https://books.google.com/books?id=BZQSAQAAIAAJ

https://books.google.com/books?id=2vZvAAAAMAAJ

https://www.theday.com/news/20170425/reaching-the-top-of-america/

I believe the in-depth coverage on him in the Oregonian, and multiple sources crediting him with the first in the US to reach all the tops and receiving coverage multiple times spanning years apart is an indication of notability and I feel he meets Wikipedia:SPORTSPERSON

Graywalls (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Graywalls (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Although I nominated the article for deletion, I think with some further improvements it can be kept with all these sources. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Tentative Keep per WP:HEY. I’d love for someone else to add the sources found to the article. Bearian (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete Per nominator, fails WP:GNG. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. The Oregonian is definitely sigcov, the other sources help at least a bit, and Newspapers.com clippings ([11][12][13]) are enough to push him over the top, in my view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:10, 12 November 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. A redirect can be created at editorial discretion Star Mississippi 23:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yashar Vafaei Mamaghani

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. All of the sources (Turkish is my mother-tongue, so I examined all of them.) are promotional. The page needs to be deleted. Kadı Message 21:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Economics, Iran, and Turkey. Kadı Message 21:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete: I agree with the nomination rationale. The references are dated closely together, are similarly worded, and do not seem to reflect independent journalism. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Seems to satisfy WP:GNG, seen coverage in numerous sources. Some recent ones do seem to be around the same timeframe but from what I can see is from reputable and acceptable news websites. There seems to be older articles as well which aren't necessarily referenced in the article, but still demonstrate notability. Rob. H. Brodie (talk) 07:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
@Rob. H. Brodie, please read this policy. Promotional content is not allowed on Wikimedia projects. Best, Kadı Message 13:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I have read and I don't find this applicable to me especially on the 'paid contribution'. If there are promotional texts in the article I'm happy to go and correct it. I'm even happy to add things that would be deemed negative to the subject if that's important and there are sources from it. But from what I have gathered and seen I don't think the article should be deleted on the basis provided above. It is in the best interest of Wikipedia to maintain articles that have acceptable sources, which I am confident this article has. Best Rob. H. Brodie (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, while I respect the reasoning behind the proposed deletion of Vafaei’s page, I believe the sources cited provide independent and impartial information. I see that he has been featured in many Turkish and global sources. Yashar Vafaei’s work, particularly his contributions in sustainable investment and economic development, holds significant value for society. The sources are not for promotional purposes but rather drawn from credible global sources that illustrate his impact in the business world and beyond. If there are sections that seem biased, I would be happy to assist in making necessary adjustments. I recommend preserving the page to continue offering valuable information to the public. Youtuberhakankeles (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Youtuberhakankeles, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contributing to the discussion. I was wondering if you happen to know this individual in a personal or professional context? TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @TheJoyfulTentmaker, thank you for reaching out and for the warm welcome. Yes, I do know Yashar Vafaei and am familiar with his work. I’m here to contribute to this discussion to ensure that the article remains neutral and informative, following Wikipedia’s guidelines. I understand the importance of unbiased representation and would be happy to make any necessary edits to keep the content aligned with Wikipedia’s standards. Thank you for your guidance and feedback! Youtuberhakankeles (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete - based on the headlines alone, it would appear that the best of the sources are about the company, not the person. I would not oppose an appropriate redirect. Bearian (talk) 11:32, 8 November 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!} 00:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

DXKS-FM (Cagayan de Oro)

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

Recently recreated page after earlier prod, evidently with the same tags. The station does exist (the NTC pulled a Mexico and double-dipped on DXKS) and has been around a while but needs citation help urgently to meet the GNG, a problem common to Philippines radio station articles. See also title DXKS-FM (CDO). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll try another relisting. Maybe User:Vineyard93 wants to take part in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 10 November 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 List of French animated television series#Comedy. asilvering (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Zoé Kézako

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

Almost completely unsourced, heavily POV article. BEFORE showed no reviews or news. From what I can find, subject does not meet GNG. StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and France. StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep: http://www.planete-jeunesse.com/fiche-1529-zoe-kezako.html; also significant mentions here: https://www.animationmagazine.net/2021/12/people-on-the-move-teamtos-kouper-named-personality-of-the-year-milano-heads-rai-kids-more/ ("winner of the 2004 Pulcinella Award at Cartoons on the Bay and an Emmy nominee") (Emmy nomination as Best international Children's program confirmed by other sources). If judged insufficient, redirect to List of French animated television series#Comedy (listed there; with the nomination information and sources) (Also is a book series; same title) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
The planete jeunesse source seems unreliable to me. The synposis it features seems to be a combination of word-for-word copies of this (archived) and this (archived) primary source. YuniToumei (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can we see a few more opinions and arguments here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

~~Keep~~: The Cartoons on the Bay 2004 Report mentions it and specifies which Pulcinella awards it won exactly. Also, by searching in french results specifically, I found a french news article in Le Monde's archive. These might be of use for some inline citations as well in order to improve the article. YuniToumei (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed excessive sections of the article and rewritten the synopsis using the Le Monde article, as well as added in some inline citations. However, despite finding another article after a deep dive into french newspaper archives, I now think the article does not meet WP:GNG, as all other articles I've seen are only passing mentions. The 2 articles that do have it as a primary topic are very short and do not provide much additional info. Redirect to List of French animated television series#Comedy as suggested is probably best. Information on its awards could be merged there. YuniToumei (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Additonal comment, seems like a weird coincidence too that the article's creator is called Teamto, when that is the name of the studio that produced the 2nd season. Creating this article was their only edit on enwiki. Seems like they were a major contributor on the french article as well, where that is also the only article they worked on. Possible WP:COI? YuniToumei (talk) 15:45, 15 November 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 12:42, 10 November 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 17:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC).
 {|class="wikitable"
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 !Score
 |-
-|[[#Scott Cinemas|Scott Cinemas]]||{{Time ago|20241022072442}}||2||4755||0||'''1633.78'''
+|[[#Scott Cinemas|Scott Cinemas]]||{{Time ago|20241022072442}}||2||4755||0||'''1648.06'''
 |-
-|[[#Giant Records (independent)|Giant Records (independent)]]||{{Time ago|20241023122239}}||1||5731||0||'''1626.67'''
+|[[#Giant Records (independent)|Giant Records (independent)]]||{{Time ago|20241023122239}}||1||5731||0||'''1640.96'''
 |-
-|[[#Charley (Andrew Jackson captive)|Charley (Andrew Jackson captive)]]||{{Time ago|20241021104342}}||3||8244||0||'''1625.55'''
+|[[#Charley (Andrew Jackson captive)|Charley (Andrew Jackson captive)]]||{{Time ago|20241021104342}}||3||8244||0||'''1639.84'''
 |-
-|[[#Back to the Real|Back to the Real]]||{{Time ago|20241022004747}}||3||5342||0||'''1583.32'''
+|[[#Back to the Real|Back to the Real]]||{{Time ago|20241022004747}}||3||5342||0||'''1597.6'''
 |-
-|[[#2007 Gerry Reilly Cup|2007 Gerry Reilly Cup]]||{{Time ago|20241022205754}}||2||6854||0||'''1572.76'''
+|[[#2007 Gerry Reilly Cup|2007 Gerry Reilly Cup]]||{{Time ago|20241022205754}}||2||6854||0||'''1587.04'''
 |-
-|[[#Ireland Eurovision Song Contest entries discography|Ireland Eurovision Song Contest entries discography]]||{{Time ago|20241021144415}}||4||8055||0||'''1563.61'''
+|[[#Ireland Eurovision Song Contest entries discography|Ireland Eurovision Song Contest entries discography]]||{{Time ago|20241021144415}}||4||8055||0||'''1577.9'''
 |-
-|[[#Şifa University|Şifa University]]||{{Time ago|20241025114907}}||1||7764||0||'''1484.57'''
+|[[#Şifa University|Şifa University]]||{{Time ago|20241025114907}}||1||7764||0||'''1498.86'''
 |-
-|[[#Uşşaki|Uşşaki]]||{{Time ago|20241025112332}}||2||5508||0||'''1385.9'''
+|[[#Uşşaki|Uşşaki]]||{{Time ago|20241025112332}}||2||5508||0||'''1400.19'''
 |-
-|[[#Kaoli Isshiki|Kaoli Isshiki]]||{{Time ago|20241027015909}}||3||20721||0||'''1204.91'''
+|[[#Kaoli Isshiki|Kaoli Isshiki]]||{{Time ago|20241027015909}}||3||20721||0||'''1219.19'''
 |-
-|[[#Kumaar|Kumaar]]||{{Time ago|20241027021743}}||3||18638||0||'''1203.99'''
+|[[#Kumaar|Kumaar]]||{{Time ago|20241027021743}}||3||18638||0||'''1218.27'''
 |-
-|[[#Mold-Tek Packaging|Mold-Tek Packaging]]||{{Time ago|20241030091205}}||0||3461||0||'''1202.34'''
+|[[#Mold-Tek Packaging|Mold-Tek Packaging]]||{{Time ago|20241030091205}}||0||3461||0||'''1216.62'''
 |-
-|[[#Liangyou Group|Liangyou Group]]||{{Time ago|20241029111859}}||1||13059||0||'''1182.94'''
+|[[#Liangyou Group|Liangyou Group]]||{{Time ago|20241029111859}}||1||13059||0||'''1197.22'''
 |-
-|[[#Ana Coimbra|Ana Coimbra]]||{{Time ago|20241027160254}}||3||7610||0||'''1177.54'''
+|[[#Ana Coimbra|Ana Coimbra]]||{{Time ago|20241027160254}}||3||7610||0||'''1191.82'''
 |-
-|[[#National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007|National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007]]||{{Time ago|20241027172222}}||3||7373||0||'''1173.83'''
+|[[#National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007|National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007]]||{{Time ago|20241027172222}}||3||7373||0||'''1188.12'''
 |-
-|[[#Good Day (BoyNextDoor song)|Good Day (BoyNextDoor song)]]||{{Time ago|20241029235714}}||1||6711||0||'''1159.95'''
+|[[#Good Day (BoyNextDoor song)|Good Day (BoyNextDoor song)]]||{{Time ago|20241029235714}}||1||6711||0||'''1174.23'''
 |-
-|[[#Lada Niva Vision|Lada Niva Vision]]||{{Time ago|20241028215311}}||2||3715||0||'''1158.22'''
+|[[#Lada Niva Vision|Lada Niva Vision]]||{{Time ago|20241028215311}}||2||3715||0||'''1172.5'''
 |-
-|[[#Lee Du-haeng|Lee Du-haeng]]||{{Time ago|20241028163606}}||2||6529||0||'''1154.08'''
+|[[#Lee Du-haeng|Lee Du-haeng]]||{{Time ago|20241028163606}}||2||6529||0||'''1168.36'''
 |-
-|[[#Turkish tango music|Turkish tango music]]||{{Time ago|20241028105043}}||3||3746||0||'''1141.54'''
+|[[#Turkish tango music|Turkish tango music]]||{{Time ago|20241028105043}}||3||3746||0||'''1155.83'''
 |-
-|[[#Zainal Arifin Mochtar|Zainal Arifin Mochtar]]||{{Time ago|20241030074635}}||1||6144||0||'''1136.76'''
+|[[#Zainal Arifin Mochtar|Zainal Arifin Mochtar]]||{{Time ago|20241030074635}}||1||6144||0||'''1151.06'''
 |-
-|[[#Anna Cymmerman |Anna Cymmerman (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20241029021241}}||2||6515||0||'''1125.06'''
+|[[#Anna Cymmerman |Anna Cymmerman (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20241029021241}}||2||6640||0||'''1139.34'''
 |-
-|[[#Kallakkadal|Kallakkadal]]||{{Time ago|20241029135002}}||2||4678||0||'''1110.36'''
+|[[#Kallakkadal|Kallakkadal]]||{{Time ago|20241029135002}}||2||4678||0||'''1124.64'''
 |-
-|[[#Arthur H. Marshall|Arthur H. Marshall]]||{{Time ago|20241028152229}}||3||5055||0||'''1107.57'''
+|[[#Arthur H. Marshall|Arthur H. Marshall]]||{{Time ago|20241028152229}}||3||5055||0||'''1121.86'''
 |-
-|[[#Yashar Vafaei Mamaghani|Yashar Vafaei Mamaghani]]||{{Time ago|20241030211810}}||3||6757||0||'''946.18'''
+|[[#Yashar Vafaei Mamaghani|Yashar Vafaei Mamaghani]]||{{Time ago|20241030211810}}||3||6757||0||'''960.47'''
 |-
-|[[#Commotion Ltd v Rutty|Commotion Ltd v Rutty]]||{{Time ago|20241102224628}}||0||4654||0||'''945.42'''
+|[[#DXKS-FM (Cagayan de Oro)|DXKS-FM (Cagayan de Oro)]]||{{Time ago|20241103011135}}||0||3129||0||'''952.48'''
 |-
-|[[#DXKS-FM (Cagayan de Oro)|DXKS-FM (Cagayan de Oro)]]||{{Time ago|20241103011135}}||0||3129||0||'''938.19'''
+|[[#Zoé Kézako|Zoé Kézako]]||{{Time ago|20241102151408}}||1||3632||0||'''932.68'''
 |}
@@ Line 84: / Line 84: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur H. Marshall}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yashar Vafaei Mamaghani}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commotion Ltd v Rutty}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DXKS-FM (Cagayan de Oro)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoé Kézako}}