Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 08 May 10 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is that is either unverifiable or not notable. There is a proposal to redirect, but no suggestion as to where to. If somebody later covers this in another article with a reliable source, a redirect can be created. Sandstein 17:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Desert Scorpion (Iraq 1998)[edit]

Operation Desert Scorpion (Iraq 1998) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability and verifiability. No sources cited, or found. Furthermore, the 24th Infantry Division was inactive between 1996 and 1999. Likely WP:OR or even a WP:HOAX. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While I did not find any coverage of the subject in news, the term did appeared in the index of several books about the war in Iraq (1, 2, 3). However since these books don't have previews, the extent of the coverage is unclear. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comment. Judging by the locations of those references within the book, and the one reference that I was able to view, they appear to refer to the 2003 counterinsurgency operation. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: looks very much like WP:HOAX to me. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think its a hoax. It looks like it was broken off in 2004 from another article about the 2003 operation [1], which is now found at Operation Desert Scorpion (Iraq 2003). it looks like User:PaulinSaudi added the info on the 1998 event to the original article in 2004, back when we didn't always add references to new content. he's still an active editor, so maybe he can chime in.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, perhaps I was a little harsh: a lack of verifiable information doesn't mean that it never existed. Is this perhaps the 'draft version' of the operational plan, placed into the breech in 1988 but never fired, then re-used in 2003? If that can be demonstrated, a roll-back-in to the 2003 article might be the way forward. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We will need sources either way to keep this content anywhere. I didn't think you were being harsh, i was excited that maybe this AFD had uncovered a 19-year old hoax article, which would be the new record at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be fun to be the holder of a dubious hoax, but this really happened. I saw it in some newspaper and made a stub.--PaulinSaudi (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you could dig up that newspaper? But the article likely fails GNG. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: I took a look at the two sources mentioned above. Both confirm this was a routine counter insurgency operation. Both mention the operation in the context of other subjects, eg: Imperial Overeach, states, "...but the terrain makes little difference when the United States becomes engulfed in a people’s war. As its early counter-insurgency operations such as Desert Scorpion reveal, the United States is only alienating more and more people with its search-and-destroy missions. The strategists in the Pentagon even resurrected the notorious Plan Phoenix from Vietnam, which..." nothing that meets SIGCOV directly about the subject with indepth information about the subject. I don't know what the best redirect target is, but a consensus redirect is the best option. I don't see any properly sourced material for a merge.
There also appears to be multiple minor operations with the name scorpion in them related to the long term US-Iraq situation and it appears easy to confuse them.  // Timothy :: talk  12:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Randykitty (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Phantom Linebacker[edit]

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

Notability, verifiability, only source cited is a dead link to an MNF-I page RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and the sole reference is no longer a working link. Doing a quick search only found 2 articles making brief mentions of Operation Phantom Linebacker. Even if it had proper references I’m not sure if this is notable enough for an article but am open to be swayed in discussion. 2 kewl fer skool (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are not a lot of web results for this, so I was sbeginning to suspect it was completely made-up, but this news article (2004-08-15) predates the creation of ours (2004-08-18) by a couple days, so at least there's that. Also this from the Associated Press via Boston.com and this from the Los Angeles Times (the latter of which is entirely about this operation). I think this swings me to "keep". jp×g 08:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That takes care of verifiability as far as the existence of the topic is concerned, but…
    One AP brief (plus a local news article directly based on it) and a single brief article in a major newspaper just don’t pass GNG. The topic is not notable enough, unless there is a large body of analysis on its success/failure that has yet to be declassified. Anyone want to make a FOIA request? ;) RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RadioactiveBoulevardier: It looks like WP:THREE to me, but I will be totally honest with you: I'm probably not going to improve the page myself, and I don't have a strong opinion. Do you really think it is a dud? If so, I suppose I am fine with deleting it. jp×g 15:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think it fails GNG. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Might be notable when related documents were declassified, but for now not much can be written about the subject. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: agreed that it's not a great article at the moment, but topic seems to pass WP:GNG; a start-class article could at least in theory be written from the AP and LA Times articles, and there's a passing mention here and here. Another article here discusses the Saudi response to the operation. Mindful of WP:DINC that the article's quality shouldn't have a bearing on whether it's deleted. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mind setting forth in more detail why the topic passes GNG? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure: the core of WP:GNG is a subject is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That's a judgement on the quality of the sources that exist, not a judgement on the article as it is currently written.
    The meaning of significant coverage is important: the bar to clear here is Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. As long as we have "more than a trivial mention" of the operation, then, the source counts towards GNG, as long as the source itself is reliable. Since military operations don't themselves run press operations, we can discount "independent" in this context, though I can't see that doing so changes anything here.
    We have:
    • This article in the LA Times: a fairly unimpeachable HQRS, 800 words or so (hard to argue that's not WP:SIGCOV!), entirely about the operation.
    • This article indirectly from the AP: again, unimpeachable source, SIGCOV, including the operation itself, its context, the motives for it and the international reaction.
    • this article from Dawn, a major Pakistani newspaper of record: not a huge article, but significant coverage within the meaning of WP:SIGCOV above. Useful for the international (Saudi) reaction to the operation.
    A commonly-used informal standard is WP:THREE: if the three best sources available on the topic stand up, it should stay; otherwise, it shouldn't. To me, this is a pretty clear pass on those grounds: it also meets the multiple requirement of WP:GNG; strictly speaking, THREE is a higher standard than GNG.
    Further sources don't necessarily need to have WP:SIGCOV, once GNG is met, but have useful information:
    • this book talks about the operation in light of its long-term aftermath, and how it fitted into an evolving US strategy for policing the border (specifically, that they decided to us US border control officers rather than Iraqi soldiers)
    • This book is by the same author as the first; I can't read it in full and it seems to cover similar material (specifically, linking the operation to the evolution of border control within the US), but it helps to show us that this topic has been covered in reliable, mainstream, published sources.
    UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good to me. But as there have been one or two delete votes, I believe this would have to stay open even if I were to withdraw. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're completely right (though if you've changed your initial assessment, you should strike it to help the closing administrator establish consensus). I'm involved in another attempted AfD rescue at the moment, but , assuming this one does pass, I might have a go at putting something together from those sources. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Admittedly an edge case as discussed above, but in those cases I'd prefer to err on the side of inclusion. There have now been enough RS unearthed to add proper citations to the article, even if it probably won't ever make it far beyond start class. --Tserton (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough.
    To be honest, my views on notability may be impacted by WP:BIAS. It would be extremely helpful if someone with the know-how to find archived Arabic-language news and RS (which had far less of an internet presence in 2004) could search around a bit.
    In any event, the article has serious issues and I’m glad I managed to attract attention so that it can hopefully be improved. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per UndercoverClassicist's research. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – republication of the AP brief results in an amplification the apparent amount of coverage using Newspapers.com (51 matches in U.S. newspapers), but the sources identified by UndercoverClassist satisfy the significant coverage by multiple independent sources needed for WP:GNG (in addition to offering international perspective). I would also like to note a subsequent LA Times article and George Mason University working paper briefly referring to the operation. Unlikely to be anything more than a skeletal article, but appears to be a marginally notable and verifiable topic. –TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 22:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 15:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Chapman (rugby league)[edit]

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

A player who was not noteworthy and fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:ENT. The references are also questionable, the first noted reference posts statistics for the wrong player on Chris’s profile as the author notes. The second reference is the archived website of a team that was pretty amateur and noted Chris only played in 1 game for the team as a substitute. None of these sources make it clear where Chris played or when he played.

In conclusion, the player is not noteworthy enough for an article, and even if he was the references aren’t good. Strong delete in my opinion. - 2 kewl fer skool (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Per above, no coverage Alex-h (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fresco Trey[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NMUSICIAN. Edwardx (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only found promotional or trivial mention of the subject. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close‎. Page is no longer an article, and is already nominated at RfD. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent of Kielcz[edit]

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


The correct name of the village is Kielcza, not Kielcz. I already moved Vincent of Kielcz to Vincent of Kielcza. Old redirection is no longer needed. Psc edits (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haldibari Higher Secondary School[edit]

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

I can find nothing outside of the school's own Facebook page and Edusanjal, neither of which confirm notability. Does not seem to pass WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Please do not confuse this school with Haldibari High School in West Bengal, which might be notable. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also Found This but still nothing indicates notability. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma International English School[edit]

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

Now that secondary schools are required to meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG or, preferably, both, I can't see how this article would meet criteria. All I can find are the institution's own media published on Facebook, LinkedIn and YouTube. None of this would meet WP:ORGIND. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) TipsyElephant (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Numberphile[edit]

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

I'm brining this article to AfD because I tagged the article for notability issues back in 2021 and I do not think that the sourcing has improved enough to merit a stand-alone article. I PRODed the article a while back and the article was recently BLARed to Brady Haran, but the article was restored. Personally, I think it should be redirected to Brady_Haran#Numberphile and maybe a couple of the sources could be merged there as well, but I don't think the subject deserves a stand-alone article. I also would like to note that I believe both the Contributors section and The Numberphile Podcast section are violations of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LINKFARM (they are arbitrary, excessive, and mostly sourced to YouTube).

Here is a rundown of what I think of the current sources. Out of the 47 sources only 11 are even secondary (most are YouTube or Haran's website). The CNET article doesn't even mention Numberphile. The LA Times article only name checks Numberphile. The Shorty Award was only a nomination not a win. The Guardian only dedicates a single sentence to the Numberphile. The blogs.scientificamerican.com source name checks Numberphile in relation to a person who has been interviewed on the show. One of the NYT articles doesn't actually mention Numberphile in the prose at all (it mentions Haran and links to their channel) and the other NYT article only dedicates a single sentence to Numberphile. The PopularMechanics source is focused on the guest who appeared on the show rather than the show itself. The Daily Illini is an WP:INTERVIEW with someone who was a guest on the show. The Smithsonian Magazine has a short article about one of their videos, but it seems more focused on the math in the video than the video or Numberphile. blogs.scientificamerican.com covered the same video, but I'm not sure how reliable the source is considering it literally has blog in the URL. TipsyElephant (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Education, and Mathematics. TipsyElephant (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After starting the AfD I saw that Scientific American is listed at RSP as reliable, but I'm still not convinced that the subject is notable. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we really questioning the reliability of Scientific American? Are we not to trust RSP when it says that SA is reliable? Then what is RSP good for?--Toploftical (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Numberphile features on most lists of top YouTube channels for maths, unless you're looking for channels that teach particular school topics. For example here, here, here, here, here and here. If I mention it to a group of maths students, there is some surprise if someone hasn't already watched it. David Malone (talk) 07:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally don't have a problem with listicles as a way to demonstrate notability (if only a small indicator), but I don't even have to click the links to these sources to tell that these aren't reliable. Two of the URLs for these sites alone are blogs, and I'm 301% certain the writers of these sources aren't established experts in the field.
    Also to TipsyElephant, have you extended your WP:BEFORE search to sources outside of websites and news articles, such as books and scholarly sources? As a mathematics based channel, they may have received extensive coverage in those types of sources as well. I found this source from searching Numberphile up on Google Scholar for example: [1] PantheonRadiance (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC) PantheonRadiance (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/202210/rnoti-p1789.pdf
  • Vote to keep I am the main contributor to this page. Numberphile page in WP gets from two to three thousand hits every month, It is linked to by about seventy other WP article.--Toploftical (talk) 07:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I am baffled this is on AfD. This is an extremely prominent YouTube channel with a massive following. That alone is demonstrative of notability.
    SIGCOV generates a presumption that a subject is notable. It is not a requirement that an otherwise notable subject has SIGCOV before they are worthy of a wikipedia entry.
    Besides, there are numerous WP:BEFORE articles that establish coverage. e.g. here, here, and here.
    Nominations of this kind undermine the Wikipedia project as a whole. Jack4576 (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote to Keep The primary function of Wikipedia is to be objective and didactic. The same function is that of Numberphile. Notability is self evident - a website and educational channel (text and video) that has flourished for over ten years, introduced multiple mathematicians, has increased prominence of mathematics to students, has included female mathematicians (vital), has popularised the challenges of mathematics in the scholastic community, has elevated mathematics above textbook sterility by animating it..
    The nomination for deletion smacks of critique for the sake of destruction of a noble, propaedeutic, and educational feature of popular culture. Making mathematics appeal to young students would seem vital, not deletable..
    This AfD is cowardly..
    It is destroying recognition of an educational mechanism that is growing steadily. To liken the page to a directory under WP:NOTDIRECTORY is like saying the spines of a set of volumes of Encyclopedia Brittanica plagiarizes the alphabet. This AfD ignores the value of the collection's substance internally, and its mathematical diversity. It misrepresents the cultural significance of Numberphile as a unique educational forum. The historical nature of Numberphile can't be as readily cited, except that the mathematics represented here spans a long period and is a unique approach to popularising mathematics.. StephenCraigSmith (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You make several really excellent points. But your remarks would be more forceful if you had a User Page. (Getting a User page is easy and is quite useful!) Also, WP decorum recommends that one avoid judgemental words like cowardly and "critique for the sake of destruction". Thank you for emphasizing the diversity, educational value and popularity of Numberphile.--Toploftical (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I retract my "cowardly" value judgement. I just don't see the critics producing a volume of significant work comparable to the constructive work created under the Numberphile label. In that regard, deletion seems to rely on undervaluing Numberphile by reducing it to its list of entries, ignoring the academic value, ignoring the multiple contributors, ignoring the Numberphile content itself. Numberphile is about maths - surely the onus is upon the critics to provide citations which disprove the mathematical assertions within the Numberphile content? In part the AfD is about the granularity of Wikipedia, to avoid "nesting" or hierarchies of entries arising. I think the idea of Numberphile as a "collection" of its produced output shouldn't invalidate its WP inclusion. If a WP entry for a car manufacturer includes a list of models, then a WP entry for Numberphile as a "media producer" should be similarly informative. If there is an underlying motivation, or philosophy, or methodology for Numberphile, this may elevate Numberphile's WP inclusion above just being a WP:NOTDIRECTORY transgression.
    Again, I'm new to the nuances of AfD discourse, but I'd like to recognize the full value of Numberphile. Apologies for the value judgements. I will modify my future entries here to be more objective. StephenCraigSmith (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Stephen. Your remarks are on point. Welcome to WP! --Toploftical (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm seeing a lot of WP:BLOGS cited and quite a few WP:ATA so far. I'll look over the newly presented sources and I'll do another WP:BEFORE sometime today. I would be willing to withdraw if I see that WP:N or WP:WEB are met. TipsyElephant (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is not established by reference to sources. Notability is established through utilitization of sources; but at the end of the day, notability is an inherent quality of a subject. It requires forming a plausible and reasonable view as to what a subject actually is.
    Here, even without any regard to the new sources that have been presented; it can be readily established that Numberphile is an organisation with an incredibly large reach. (e.g. YouTube viewer count, YouTube subscriber statistics, the prominence of people interviewed on the channel, BBC features, etcetera).
    GNG guidelines establish a presumption that a subject is notable. GNG guidelines are not required for a subject to be notable, if that subject's notability can be readily established to a reasonable intuitive degree. This is not WP:ATA. I have provided my factual reasoning for my conclusion in the previous paragraph. If you disagree, it would be good if you could engage in the argument directly.
    It is beyond my understanding that this AfD continues. To my mind this is an obvious, and (ought to be speedy), strong keep. Jack4576 (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck your bolded !vote here, as you already registered it above. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You mention that you see a few WP:ATAs. I agree. But how then would you view your own comments such as, "Personally, I think it should be redirected," "I do not think that the sourcing has improved enough," "I'm still not convinced that the subject is notable," and " I don't think the subject deserves a stand-alone article." How is stating "what you think" not WP:ATA?--Toploftical (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I think the subject does not pass WP:N, which is criteria #8 of WP:DEL-REASON. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote to Keep Of course it should be kept. I see plenty of wikipedia pages on influencers that are notable solely through their following (and its a good thing they have articles!) Numberphile is not only popular, it has content from many mathematicians who are notable in their own right. MathHisSci (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. If you need a source, Google scholar turns up hundreds of results (most of which are irrelevant, but I would guess you could find at least dozens of useful ones). Here's something in the Notices of the AMS: https://community.ams.org/journals/notices/202210/rnoti-p1789.pdf – edit: I see this was already linked above. There are also a bunch of peer-reviewed papers which cite particular Numberphile videos. –jacobolus (t) 17:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article might not be doing itself any favours with the unnecessary list of podcast episodes but the subject here is clearly notable. The Google Books, News and Scholar hits offer material for more appropriate expansion of the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. The Monthly article linked above contains SIGCOV specifically about this channel. There's a paragraph about it in the book YouTube and Music: Online Culture and Everyday Life pp. 135–136. There's a published one-paragraph review entirely about it in The College Mathematics Journal, JSTOR 48662076. At Right Angles, an Indian mathematics magazine, has covered it twice [2] [3]. There appears to be coverage in NewScientist "Science stars of YouTube", doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(19)30335-5, but I didn't have paywall access to check. There's also plenty of in-depth published coverage of some of its individual videos, especially the ones on 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯ and on sums of three cubes. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep this is the most promenent mathematics YouTube channel. It has been mentioned numerious times in the main streem media. "Science Channels Explode on YouTube" Guardian, 11/11/11[4], other reference from the guardian include [5], [6], Science never quite clicked for me at school. Then I discovered science YouTube, 5/3/19 [7], its mentioned in the John Conway's Obit from 2020 [8]. Here we have and article referencing the then 70m views in 2014.[9] There are 50 odd reference to the channel from just one newspaper. So clearly very notable an easy pass of general notability criteria.--Salix alba (talk): 18:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:SIGCOV from the AMS Notices [10], plus lots of reviews of videos from the channel, including several in high-profile venues like the NYTimes, Smithsonian Mag, etc. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the snowball clause. In addition to the above sources, we could mention The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Mathematics [11], Using the Schoolwide Enrichment Model With Technology [12], the Handbook Of Mathematical Science Communication [13], etc. Neither the list of contributors nor the list of podcast episodes is a product directory; the question of whether either should be condensed is a matter for editing, not deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Dunham[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC, was unable to find anything about him so support the claims in the article. According to the article he released a couple albums in the 1980s so there might be something in a newspaper but Newspapers.com isn't working for me. I'll go back and check there tomorrow and if I find something I'll add it to the article and withdraw this nomination. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 20:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Totakeke (musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC, was unable to find anything using his real name and his professional name. I will admit that Totakeke is also a character from Animal Crossing which really messes with the search so it is possible that there are sources out there that I didn't find. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 20:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Eribe King[edit]

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

Up-and-coming singer; blatantly fails WP:NMUSICIAN. One video and five subscribers according to their YouTube page(!?) Not only do the cited sources not mention the subject, one of them is false (e.g. reference 3, which is about David King (chemist)!) SuperMarioMan (Talk) 19:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as PROMO. No hits in Gnews for this person, hardly any sourcing unrelated to the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I removed the source linking to another person entirely, and I tagged three others which do not contain any mention of the subject and the titles are not correct. I cannot find any evidence of notability. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Only a YouTuber. No international tours. Just started his career. I have more followers on Instagram than he does. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Lucia[edit]

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

This digital artist does not meet our notability criteria per WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. A "before" search only reveals social media, listings, and user-submitted content, but no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, therefore WP:SIGCOV is absent. She is a younger emerging artist in a vast field so perhaps in 5 or more years her career may develop to substantiate an encyclopedia article, but not now, as it's WP:TOOSOON. I could not find any reviews of her work, or articles on her practice in newspapers, art magazines, academic journals nor in art history books; she does not yet seem to have a significant exhibition record, nor is her work found in the permanent collections of notable museums or national galleries. Bringing it here for the community to weigh-in on and decide through consensus. Netherzone (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sinan Erbil[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Kadı Message 19:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nightline (Malaysian TV program)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. All concerns in the deletion rationale seem to have been addressed. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Guess[edit]

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

Reviewing this article reveals a multitude of issues that violate Wikipedia's guidelines on both Biographies of Living Persons.

The first guideline, neutral point of view, has not been followed. The article continuously discusses uncited reviews of the poet's work, all of which are incredibly laudatory. Previously, I deleted a section titled "Reviews" that was devoted to this, but this is present in the biography as well. There is no ruminations on the qualifications of the reviewers, or any indication that these reviews exist, they're just interwoven into the article.

The second guideline, verifiability, has also not been followed. The introduction and biography appear to be almost entirely copied from the poet's personal website, except for a few sentences, which have been rearranged slightly. I have also not been able to find discussions of the subject in academic journals or newspapers (other than basic blurbs that the poet published a new work, with no discussion about the poet himself), although I welcome this point to be challenged by any editors that manage to find reliable secondary sources on the subject.

The third guideline, no original research, is similar. Almost all of the edits are from IP addresses or accounts which have exclusively worked on this page, thereby hinting that these accounts have a close connection to the subject. One of these accounts shares the name of the subject of the article. And there are no citations to any sources, just a listing of the poet's website. Therefore, this article might be just original research from the subject and/or close connections.

As a result, I would like to nominate this page for deletion. Panian513 18:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Weak Keep review in Southerly (1998)[14], review in Southerly (1989)[15]. Included in the Penguin Book of Christmas Poems(1992)[16], Review Social Alternatives (1998)[17]. Review of co-authored anthology in LiNQ (Literature in North Queensland) (1992)[18]. Found these without great access to Australian sources, so I think he's probably minor but notable. There are also, of course a bunch of passing mentions, and a couple of routine coverage newspaper articles I found[19][20]. Probably more of those with better access to Australian newspapers. Jahaza (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also frequently published in Quadrant and mentioned twice in the Oxford Guide to Literary Australia so it seems people in literary Australia expected to know who he was.[21] Jahaza (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep on basis of articles identified by Jahaza subject apperas notable.
Article definitely needs a NPOV re-write.
I think it best to keep this article and flag its issues. Jack4576 (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as copyvio [22]. Keeping this text would be a violation of basic site policy. XOR'easter (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose: In response to your comment re-written the entry to address copyvio issues Jack4576 (talk) 08:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. After multiple relists, there is still a plausible disagreement among participants about whether the sources support notability. RL0919 (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan Cinefest[edit]

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

Defunct, and doesn't seem to have ever met WP:GNG. Deleted by PROD previously. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Robinson, Luke (2017). "Sole Traders, Cultural Brokers, and Chinese-Language Film Festivals in the United Kingdom: The London Taiwan Cinefest and the Chinese Visual Festival". In Berry, Chris; Robinson, Luke (eds.). Chinese Film Festivals: Sites of Translation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-55016-3_10. ISBN 978-1-137-55480-2. Retrieved 2023-04-16.

      The book notes on page 197: "The Taiwan Cinefest, I argue, translates the idea of "Taiwanese cinema" for its viewers through tried and tested commercial practices."

      The book notes on page 198: "The London Taiwan Cinefest brands itself as "Europe's largest independent Taiwanese film festival." The event took place annually in London from 2009 to 2012—expanding to include screenings in Glasgow in 2010 and a touring event in Paris during its last iteration—and is the brainchild of Steven Flynn. A British national and independent film producer, Flynn first became interested in Asia while studying International Relations at university, and acquired a taste for Chinese-language media while teaching English in the PRC after graduation. On returning to the UK, he decided to simultaneously develop his production career and launch a film festival dedicated to Chinese-language cinema. After assessing the existing festivals of Asian cinema in London—including Chinese-focused events such as the China Image Festival, but also festivals run by the Korea Foundation, Japan Foundation, and Asia House—he decided that there was room in the calendar for a niche event dedicated to film from Taiwan. Thus the Taiwan Cinefest was born."

    2. Xiang, Yifei 項貽斐 (2012-05-23). "Taiwan Cinefest徵短片 找台灣電影新秀" [Taiwan Cinefest invites short films to find Taiwanese film stars]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. C3.

      The article notes: "以介紹台灣電影在國際曝光的「2012 Taiwan Cinefest」影展將在今年5月於倫敦、洛杉磯、紐約與巴黎等地舉行，其中「台灣電影新秀獎」短片單元歡迎台灣短片報名，獲選作品將可在該影展中放映。"

      From Google Translate: "The "2012 Taiwan Cinefest" film festival, which introduces the international exposure of Taiwanese films, will be held in London, Los Angeles, New York, and Paris in May this year. Among them, the "Taiwan Film Rookie Award" short film section welcomes applications for short films from Taiwan, and the selected works will be awarded Screened at the festival."

    3. Huang, Zhenzhen 黃貞貞 (2010-03-19). "倫敦台灣電影節　林育賢獲好評" [London Taiwan Cinefest. Yuxian Lin received good reviews] (in Chinese). Central News Agency. Archived from the original on 2023-04-16. Retrieved 2023-04-16 – via YouTube.

      The video description notes: "第2屆倫敦台灣電影節17號登場，以高雄為背景的異國戀情電影「對不起！我愛你」被選為開幕片，是歐洲首演。導演林育賢在倫敦與影迷相見歡。電影節由中華民國駐英代表處參與合辦，在倫敦西南邊的Riverside Studio藝文展演中心播放。"

      From Google Translate: "The 2nd London Taiwan Cinefest will be held on the 17th, and the exotic love movie "Sorry! I Love You" set in Kaohsiung was selected as the opening film, which is the European premiere. Director Yuxian Lin meets fans in London. The film festival is co-organized by the Representative Office of the Republic of China in the UK and broadcast at the Riverside Studio Art Exhibition Center in southwest London."

    4. "《父后七日》为台湾电影节揭幕" ["Seven Days in Heaven" opening at the Taiwan Cinefest] (in Chinese). BBC. 2011-05-27. Archived from the original on 2023-04-16. Retrieved 2023-04-16.

      The article notes: "5月26日晚，英国台湾电影节在伦敦Apollo Piccadilly电影院开幕。开幕片《父后七日》的导演刘梓洁来到伦敦参与欧洲首映。 英国台湾电影节由驻英台北代表处与伦敦Cinefest Productions合作举办，今年是第三届。本届电影节为期三天，放映《父后七日》、《不能没有你》、《艋舺》、《恋爱通告》等四部剧情长片以及八部台湾新导演的短片。"

      From Google Translate: "On the evening of May 26, the British Taiwan Cinefest opened at the Apollo Piccadilly Cinema in London. Marula Liu, the director of the opening film "Seven Days in Heaven", came to London to participate in the European premiere. The British Taiwan Cinefest is jointly organized by the Taipei Representative Office in the UK and Cinefest Productions in London. This year is the third year. This year's film festival will last for three days, and will screen four feature films including "Seven Days in Heaven", "Cannot Live Without You", "Monga" and "Love in Disguise" as well as eight short films by new Taiwanese directors."

    5. "视频：伦敦台湾电影节新锐导演访谈" [Video: Interview with Emerging Directors at the London Taiwan Cinefest] (in Chinese). BBC. 2010-03-18. Archived from the original on 2023-04-16. Retrieved 2023-04-16.

      The article notes: "3月17日晚，第二届伦敦台湾电影节（Taiwan Cinefest）拉开了帷幕，本地观众有机会欣赏10部从未在英国及欧洲上映的台湾电影。... 伦敦台湾电影节的组织者Steven Flynn曾经在中国大陆工作，对台湾电影的浓厚兴趣促使他创立了这个全欧洲最大规模的台湾影展。 ... 本届台湾电影节为期5天，还将特别在伦敦大学Goldsmith学院举行新秀讨论会，展映7位台湾裔电影新人的短片作品。"

      From Google Translate: "On the evening of March 17, the second London Taiwan Cinefest kicked off, and local audiences had the opportunity to enjoy 10 Taiwanese films that had never been screened in the UK or Europe. ... The organizer of the London Taiwan Film Festival, Steven Flynn, used to work in mainland China. His strong interest in Taiwanese films prompted him to create the largest Taiwan film festival in Europe. ... This year's Taiwan Film Festival lasts for 5 days, and will also hold a discussion panel for newcomers at Goldsmith College, University of London, where they will screen short films by 7 newcomers of Taiwanese descent."

    6. Less significant coverage:
      1. "《电哪吒》亮相伦敦台湾电影节" ["Spin Kid" debuted at the London Taiwan Cinefest] (in Chinese). BBC. 2012-05-25. Archived from the original on 2023-04-16. Retrieved 2023-04-16.

        The article notes: "5月24日晚，第四届伦敦台湾电影节TaiwanCinefest在Appollo Cinema与观众见面，开幕电影《电哪吒》的导演李运杰接受子川采访。"

        From Google Translate: "On the evening of May 24th, the 4th London Taiwan Film Festival TaiwanCinefest met with the audience at Appollo Cinema. Li Yunjie, the director of the opening film "Spin Kid", was interviewed by Zi Chuan."

      2. "伦敦台湾电影节 采访魏德圣导演" [Interview with director Wei Te-sheng at the London Taiwan Film Festival] (in Chinese). BBC. 2009-02-23. Archived from the original on 2023-04-16. Retrieved 2023-04-16.

        The article notes: "伦敦的台湾电影节今年已经是第三届了。不仅在选片上经典和新秀都有顾及，而且从嘉宾来看，从第一届的新锐导演李启源、第二届的国际知名导演蔡明亮，到这次的魏德圣，每次都给观众带来不一样的感受。"

        From Google Translate: "The Taiwan Film Festival in London is in its third year this year. Not only classics and rookies are considered in the selection of films, but also from the perspective of the guests, from the first new director Li Qiyuan, the second internationally renowned director Cai Mingliang, to this time Wei Desheng, each time they brought the audience a wonderful experience. same feeling."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Taiwan Cinefest (traditional Chinese: 台灣電影節; simplified Chinese: 台湾电影节) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The first source presented above meets IS RS with SIGCOV (barely). The rest are clearly promo. Sources in the article and BEFORE are promo. A single source along with evidence the event was promoted does not pass GNG or EVENT. If someone adds IS RS with SIGCOV (not promo) to the article, let me know (no need for a wall of text).  // Timothy :: talk  16:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Taiwan Cinefest was a film festival held in London between 2009 and 2012. It received substantial coverage in a 2017 book. It was covered by the BBC over multiple years. It was covered by the Taiwanese media. This is more than enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I don't consider the BBC and the Taiwanese sources to be promotional sources. Cunard (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found by Cunard. Clearly passes WP:GNG. 49.237.39.216 (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further analysis of Cunard's sources would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I agree, it meets WP:GNG. Nothing can like this. CastJared (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for reviewing the sources, CastJared (talk · contribs). Would you clarify what you mean by "Nothing can like this"? Is there a missing word or words in that sentence? Cunard (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Means that arguing on decision to keep by liking this article. CastJared (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources presented give information that the event is being held but I'm not sure if any of the article writers actually attended the Cinefest. I'd want to see at least one indepth review or commentary after the event. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE states "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. Only Cunard's first source is published after the event and that concentrates on Steven Flynn, not the Cinefest. Therefore, for me, the sources presented do not sufficiently demonstrate significant coverage for notability. The claim in the lead that the event is "Europe's largest Taiwanese film festival" is self-styled as Cunard's first source indicates. Rupples (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE redirects to Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Duration of coverage. Wikipedia:Notability (events) says, "This notability guideline for events reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article about past, current, and breaking news events should be written, merged, deleted or further developed."

      As the Taiwan Cinefest is not a "breaking news event", WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and Wikipedia:Notability (events) are not applicable. Wikipedia:Notability#Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time is applicable and that is met by Robison 2017, which was published five years after the festival stopped being held.

      Here are more quotes from Robison 2017 to show that the festival has received significant coverage and analysis from it. From page 197:

      To this end, for the rest of this chapter I will consider two case studies. Both are specialist Chinese-language festivals based in London: the Taiwan Cinefest and the Chinese Visual Festival. In both instances, I will focus on how the festivals aim to translate certain concepts or ideas for local audiences through film selection and ancillary practices, although what is being translated, and how, varies for each festival. The Taiwan Cinefest, I argue, translates the idea of “Taiwanese cinema” for its viewers through tried and tested commercial practices.

      From page 198:

      [paragraph I previously quoted at Robison 2017]

      In the past, the Cinefest’s London iteration has typically lasted between three and five days. Its locations have varied, though Flynn has usually tried to rent cinemas in the city center for at least some screenings every year. Programs have incorporated a variety of genres, including documentaries, features, and short films. Moreover, the festival has tried to ensure UK premiers as a central strand of its programming, often complementing these with special appearances from directors or actors, particularly for opening night films. Despite this scale and range of activity, however, in many ways the Cinefest remains a one-man event. [discussion about how it is a one-man event] This means that continuity is difficult, with new staff having to be trained every year; it also means that Flynn is closely involved in all areas of the festival, and clearly keeps overheads low. This latter point is important, since Flynn is essentially responsible for the festival’s finances. Its initial seed money came out of his pocket: the first year made what he describes as a “tactical loss,” with a view to the longer-term development of the event’s potential. Since then, he has aimed to make the festival a self-funding enterprise that, while not profit seeking, does try at least to be financially self-sufficient. It has acquired various different sponsors or partners on a year-by-year basis—including Taiwanese run or branded businesses and the Taipei Representative Office in the UK—but these provide the event with subsidies in kind, rather than significant financial support: costs are effectively recouped from ticket sales. Thus, it would appear to be this financial and organizational self-sufficiency that is signified by the branding of the event as independent, one which seeks to distance the Cinefest from assumptions of third party management, be that governmental or commercial, and ensure a degree of “flexibility and control over what we do.”

      This source provides substantial analysis about the "financial and organizational self-sufficiency" of the festival.

      Cunard (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      Thanks for providing the additional quote.  I acknowledge that source as being reliable, independent and sufficiently indepth to count towards notability. However, it’s the only source so far presented that does. It’s the only one written after the event. The Notability (events) guideline asks us to consider past events. Cinefest is an event and so I’m judging it by the criteria in that guideline and believe it falls under point 3 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA: “Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable”.
      I have then considered WP:LASTING, WP:COVERAGE and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. My view is the sources presented are not sufficient to satisfy these three areas. It would need attention from at least one other source looking back at Cinefest to do so. My interpretation of the other sources presented is 'routine coverage' WP:ROUTINE as all they do is tell readers that the event exists. WP:DIVERSITY, on the other hand, is fulfilled. Rupples (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 17:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uudeküla Bulldogs RFC[edit]

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

Single source was added after PROD: brief article in local paper noting a second place finish in local championship. Fails GNG. Skipple ☎ 16:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Possible alternative is the redirecting to Rugby union in Estonia (but currently this club is not even mentioned in this overview article)--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Looks to fail WP:GNG, although there may be Estonian coverage that I can't find. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malyshev Yevhen Valentynovych[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete killed during the conflict, had he not passed away, would not be at GNG. Only competing at lower sport levels. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ as non-notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Hall (American football)[edit]

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

This is a suspected hoax, but there is enough similar semi-related stuff on Google (especially mentioning the Cologne Centurions of NFL Europe) that I believe it should go through AFD. It was nominated for speedy deletion with the rationale "Hoax article. No stats for any Jason Hall at NFL.com or pro-football-reference.com" by Skywatcher68. —Kusma (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and United States of America. —Kusma (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There does seem to have been a defensive end who played for Tennessee during the time described ([23]), and the article originally discussed that. It seems an IP changed everything here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverted the IP's vandalism. The defensive end Jason Hall did exist, see PFA stats. How much of it is true, I'm not yet sure (especially statements like "On August 15, 2008 the Tennessee Titans claimed Hall from waivers after less than a 24-hour wait. He quickly worked his way into the lineup and made an immediate impact with his knack for rushing the passer. Hall's production helped to propel the team to a remarkable 13-3 regular season. He finished the year with career highs in quarterback pressures, 14, and sacks, 6" which cannot be true as he did not play in any games.) BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    True, Hall did play for the Volunteers but never the Titans. The largely fictitious NFL career had been there since December 2012.   – Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can believe that he was on the teams, it just looks like he didn't play. Also, found a piece from the Times-News that looks like potential sigcov, but isn't showing entirely for me. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Found a piece of SIGCOV here from The Tennessean, plus short pieces from the Knoxville News-Sentinel and Chatanoogan. The PFA stats make it seem like he really was the NFLE Defensive MVP, which I really would have expected to have produced more coverage. Still looking though. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny how "Pro Gents" isn't mentioned in the article at all. Is one NCAA award and one NFL Europe award plus his community service work notable enough? If so, we can keep the article minus the puffery and the NFL nonsense.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Pro Gents"? Also, it does seem some of the NFL stuff is correct, as this piece mentions him being on the Panthers for a time, plus this lists him on the Bills. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Pro Gents" is the name of the organization mentioned in the Times-News article. He may have been on those NFL teams but the article, as currently written, has him actually taking part in regular season games; in reality, he couldn't have seen anything more than practice.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have access to the whole Times-News article, could you let me know how in-depth it is (it doesn't work for me)? Maybe the right solution here would be some TNT with no restrictions on recreating it as a proper article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is behind a paywall for me now but, other than the facts that Hall played for the Volunteers and Cologne Centurions, it only really covers Pro Gents and its focus on helping college players get an education for when they don't make the pros.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I had neglected to look for other stats. Hall did have one season in NFL Europe and one in the Arena League but everything else is highly suspect.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is definitely not a hoax, but there's a lot of misinformation on the page. From what I can tell, he was in training camp for the Bills but got cut before the season per the Buffalo News (so he couldn't have played a key role on the NFL's number one special teams units). He did play in NFL Europe and won MVP per UT Sports. From other ProQuest sources I can verify that he was on the Panthers before being cut, and the Titans, but cannot verify any of the other claims. Regardless unless there's more significant coverage than the stuff from college linked by BeanieFan11 I don't think he meets WP:SPORTSCRIT. Usually players who never played in an NFL regular season game aren't notable. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I tried to clean up the article as much as I could, but still don't think that the subject is notable. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Georgia (U.S. state) and Tennessee. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete between the fraudulent stuff we've removed and what's left, I'm not seeing GNG or any sort of notability for athletes. Oaktree b (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article's subject itself isn't an outright hoax, but some details in the article do appear to be. What can be verified, however, doesn't appear to be enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. - Aoidh (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Oaktree b. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heron S.A.[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Theroadislong (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jani Tewelde[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sources exist, but they are all trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Continental champion, therefore meets NCYCLING. Seacactus 13 (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is a two-time gold medal winner of the African Continental champs thereby meeting NCYCLING and with expansion shows notability. Paulpat99 (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the sources added come close to meeting GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It Fails W:GNG PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant, it passes an SNG Jack4576 (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:ATHLETE: "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline" Jack4576 (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepSee below: meets criterion #5 of WP:NCYCLING Jack4576 (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    also arguably criterion #4: "also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship" Jack4576 (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As part of WP:NSPORTS, notability is not presumed under NCYCLING; it only tells us that significant coverage is likely to exist. Multiple sources must actually be found in order to establish notability. All of the current sources are brief mentions or names in lists, we don't even have the bare-minimum single SIGCOV source required by WP:SPORTBASIC. –dlthewave ☎ 02:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: because NCYCLING has been met, the correct approach is to keep on the presumption that significant coverage likely exists, even if those sources haven't yet actually been located. Jack4576 (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 and WP:GNG. If sources are found, ping me. BilledMammal (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    and NCYCLING? Jack4576 (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is irrelevant if it fails SPORTCRIT. BilledMammal (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am still entitled to presume that sources likely exist, and maintain my keep vote, on the basis that SPORTSCRIT has been met Jack4576 (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What source are you referring to when you say that SPORTSCRIT has been met? BilledMammal (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This one: they won the team time trial at the African Championships. Jack4576 (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an email, from someone who appears to be related to one of the cyclists (Yohannes Debesai, probably related to Frekalsi Debesai), with only a passing mention of Tewelde in a list of other cyclists (The Team Chronometer of Eritrea was well represented by Daniel Teklehaimanot, Jani Tewelde, Frekalsi Debesai and Natnael Berhane.) It probably isn't reliable, it probably isn't independent, and it certainly isn't significant coverage? BilledMammal (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not looking to this email as an example of actual significant coverage. I am looking at this email to reliably demonstrate that a fact establishing SPORTCRIT (the fact a victory was won) has been met.
    If I can estasblish that fact, I am entitled to presume that SIGCOV sources on the subject are likely to exist that would satisfy GNG, even if I haven't actually seen those sources
    Its probably not independent, but it does look authentic. In my judgement its more than likely reliable enough to establish the fact, although I accept reasonable minds may differ Jack4576 (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Victory isn't relevant to WP:SPORTCRIT #5, which instead places an absolute requirement for articles to have at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. If you don't have that one source then we cannot keep the article. BilledMammal (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point I retract my vote. Jack4576 (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although (1) its plausible this entry is of value to Eritrean, African, or Cyclist Wikipedians, (2) the claims contained in the article are supported by reliable sources, and (3) retaining this entry would assist in addressing WP's systematic deficiencies in coverage...
... the lack of coverage, both in-depth, and assessed collectively means that this entry doesn't meet SIGCOV requirements of GNG or an SNG. I have made WP:BEFORE searches yet none were found
Sadly, this is an instance where applying guidelines requires destruction of a knowledge source, irrespective of other considerations; including collateral damage to this website's wider mission and purpose Jack4576 (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the lack of GNG-meeting sources. If sources are found later the article can be recreated. JoelleJay (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Knape[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician and accountant, appears PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not promotional is I would not mention losing four elections. My plan is too add all Daventry elected officials but started by doing myself. :) Alan.knape (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alan.knape: before doing so, please read WP:NPOL. It is unlikely that any Daventry councillors meet the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there is already one or two on there but if against policy then happy for it to be removed. Alan.knape (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More citations added as suggested Alan.knape (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not an actual rule in Wikipedia, but if someone created a Wikipedia article for themself, or have others do it in their favor, then they're probably not notable enough to have an article.
In all seriousness, the current article relies exclusively on trivial mentions or non-independent sources, which fails WP:GNG And WP:NBIO. There doesn't seem to be much significant coverage of the individual as well.
I wish Alan.knape a successful political career. Who knows, maybe someday he will be famous enough to pass the notability guideline. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anna (Tamil TV series)[edit]

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

Unreleased television series, insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drafitfy as well - Too soon, sorry. Aspiringeditor1 (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. There is actually basic coverage about the TV series, but not so sufficient. I am quite sure this will meet SIGCOV later, so bring it back later when sufficient sources are added. Timothytyy (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Valereee (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jean II de Rieux[edit]

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

No citations and conducted a WP:BEFORE to no avail. No reliable source is listed either. I did put this up for the non-controversial but it was removed by an admin for valid reason of not being uncontroversial. ThatFungi (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatFungi (talk • contribs) 14:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and France. ThatFungi (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep there are potentially sources, for example "L’affirmation d’un lignage de la noblesse bretonne au XIVe siècle : Jean II de Rieux et sa famille" a book chapter by Gwenaelle Guillaume, who appears qualified to comment; ref is here [24]. It's described as pp. 37-64 within a larger book, so this could be an in-depth source, but I don't know for sure as I'm unwilling to pay personally to check! She has also written another book on the family[25] though I think that counts as must one source between the two as she's just one author. Jean gets various passing mentions elsewhere, for example because his marriage caused the chateau of Ranrouët to change hands ([26] and he gets a passing mention for having a brass too: [27]. There's some information on him at [28]. Jean II is clearly overshadowed by Jean IV, but I'm very uninclined to delete because (1) I'm neither a French historian nor particularly fluent in French and nevertheless managed to find these possible sources quite quickly, so I suspect someone more skilled would find more, and (2) for someone to be remembered so many centuries after their death, they must have made a considerable splash at the time - and once notable is always notable. At the very least, I'd like input from someone who knows something about French medieval history before deleting. Elemimele (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as marshal of France he was certainly notable. See also 1, 2 and 3. Mccapra (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mccapra While I can’t read those for the most part they appear to be just lists of names with highlighted de and Jean. Can you give me an insight as to what these are please? Thanks ThatFungi (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. 1. Is an entry in the 1833 Biographie Universelle Classique (22 lines); 2. is an entry in the 1811 Dictionnaire universel, historique, critique et bibliographique (27 lines); and 3. is an entry in the 1759 Grand dictionnaire historique (14 lines). Mccapra (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra so this are basically just lists then? Because of the links I can’t translate them as I do see you say 22 lines and 27 lines. ThatFungi (talk) 05:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not basically just lists. They are substantial entries in three separate biographical dictionaries. Mccapra (talk) 06:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra ah ok. Thanks for that information. I appreciate it. ThatFungi (talk) 06:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless this is a complete fabrication, someone born in the 14th century for whom we have a portrait and a birth and death year is highly likely to be notable. Being a Marshall of France would also be a plausible claim to notability. It's on multiple Wikipedias. The sources are probably difficult to find in English, and unfortunately frwiki doesn't have our sourcing requirements, but this person is almost certainly notable. Valereee (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added @Mccapra's sources into a Further reading section, hopefully someone will happen along who can read French. Valereee (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee Can I withdraw my nomination of this article if someone wants to put in their links from above? The references would definitely help. Thanks ThatFungi (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThatFungi, I've already put those links into a Further reading section. I don't read French well enough to be able to use them to insert citations inline.
    But that isn't really necessary. Simply lacking inline citations isn't a reason for deletion of an article. We need to believe sources don't exist that would support notability. It can be tricky when a subject is primarily covered in another language (and even more so when the subject is covered in another alphabet) but a general references section or further reading section shows other editors -- who may be able to access and read them -- that sources do indeed exist.
    Yes, you can withdraw an AfD. Instructions are at WP:WDAFD. Valereee (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee Ok thank you. I’ll look at the link. Much appreciated (again for all your help). ThatFungi (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee Can you close this please? I put the withdrawn statement up top (maybe the wrong place).
    Thanks. ThatFungi (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn‎. ✗plicit 14:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of extreme temperatures in Finland[edit]

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

Original research and uncorrected temperature parameter format ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 13:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Does not appear to be OR, the fi.wp article cites the same information to this page by the Finnish Meteorological Institute. I'm not sure what is meant by uncorrected temperature parameter format, but that seems like an issue to be solved through editing rather than AfD. -Ljleppan (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as the current quality is concerned, it can indeed be retained rather than removed. As far as the content of the original form is concerned, people are confused. So I adjusted the table to put the year in the first column. In addition I added a preamble to the table to make it navigable. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 14:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per my comment above: the OR concern appears to have been addressed, remaining issues can be addressed through normal editing. -Ljleppan (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and I suggest withdrawing if the nominator is now happy with the article. The data is sourced to the Finnish Meteorological Institute, which is a reliable source for weather data in Finland, so it's not original research. Hut 8.5 16:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The nominator will soon withdrawn this article. There is no more original research. CastJared (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete OR concerns resolved, but unsure if it passes GNG. 69.118.237.29 (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Request withdrawn, the requested question is gone, not an OR question, since the table data is from an official release. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 00:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aruvi (TV series)[edit]

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This isn't notable for Wikipedia at all. CastJared (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Relies exclusively on promotional pieces and trivial mentions as sources. Searches of the subject only returned similar results, along with reviews of a movie by the same name. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The article fails WP:CORP and WP:NOTTRAVEL. TadejM my talk 13:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Adria Airways destinations[edit]

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

This article violates WP:CORP and the outcome of the 2018 RFC where it was decided that these articles listing airline destinations are essentially directories/databases containing purely commercial information.

WP:CORP is failed as, though this is a list, this is manifestly about a commercial enterprise, meaning that WP:LISTN is modified by WP:CORP, yet the only sources cited in the article are the company's own website and www.exyuaviation.com, which is a blog. No reliable, independent sources are cited in the article. To meet WP:CORP sources would have to be found that satisfy the audience requirements for WP:CORP articles, meaning that industry-press or local news alone won't be enough. Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Slovenia. FOARP (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, apart from the fact that the company went bankrupt in 2019, this list is only a list of destinations at a specific time. Not much to merge to the parent article, either. --Tone 10:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This information would be perfectly valid in the article about the airline itself, but might make that article excessively long. I think we need a new policy: If an airline company is notable, its list of destinations as a separate article is also notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eastmain - So, lists of products/services provided by companies should be automatically assumed notable if the providing company is notable? Lists of bus-routes? Rail services? Computer programs? Cars? Package holidays? Individual hotels in hotel-chains? Restaurants in a franchise? Multiplex cinemas? Supermarkets? These are all no different ultimately to the routes of an airline. The routes served by an airline are just as routine and run-of-the-mill as the locations run by Arby's or Tim Hortons or Little Chef.
That Argos or Costco are notable does not mean we should have a list-article listing all of their outlets. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not the Yellow Pages, nor an airline services schedule.
Additionally, the sourcing here (the company and a blog) is clearly not suitable. This is setting aside the question of whether the parent article is appropriately sourced.
The place to propose policy changes is at WP:VPP, not here. Here we already have an RFC regarding specifically these articles, which says they are not suitable content. FOARP (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • CastJared - Frankly I'm OK with deleting all of the lists of destination articles per the 2018 RFC, but I'm curious - why is Star Alliance relevant here? FOARP (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because Star Alliance members, have their separate destinations article for each airline. CastJared (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Minnesota Public Radio. ✗plicit 12:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Public Insight Network[edit]

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

No references, promotional language, advertisement-like lead. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOR and WP:NCORP. The only reason why it doesn't fail WP:NPOV is because there is ZERO sources here for an editor to possibly misrepresent. WP:BEFORE returned no reliable sources talking about this organization. 🔥 22spears 🔥 06:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Probably merge to Minnesota Public Radio, seems to be the main media body.
Oaktree b (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Loughborough Schools Foundation[edit]

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

This article about a collective of four schools has only one reference, to the organisation's website; I have carried out WP:BEFORE and cannot find reliable sources to add. I do not think this meets WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. I have also nominated the article about the collective's preparatory school, Fairfield Preparatory School, for deletion. Tacyarg (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only found promotional or trivial mentions of the subject, does not seem to pass WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:ORG, only a primary source provided. LibStar (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Reads G11ish, source in article and BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  21:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alper Kaya[edit]

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

Only claim of notability is receiving an award from the Turkish Journalists' Association in 2010, which according to the source was given to 11 people in the sports category that year. Not to mention that the wording in our article is wrong and that he did not get the 'Sport Article of the Year' award, but rather was one of the two winners in a subcategory of that (column).

The one other source is a book selling site, which also sells his books. Searching for his name -Evrensel (which he works for) gives absolutely nothing noteworthy. Lacks any coverage to be notable. ~StyyxTalk? 12:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Turkey. ~StyyxTalk? 12:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The creator of this article has only 4 edits, all from 2016 and only on the same article, which might indicate COI. Aintabli (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamida Ali[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG in my opinion. Trimfrim20 (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails GNG as i was able to find no SIGCOV beyond very local news. Nagol0929 (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: being first BAME of a major London council is notable. Jack4576 (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't a criterion for notability. Please see WP:BIO and WP:NPOL. LibStar (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BIO and WP:NPOL are not exhaustive criteria for notability.
    If you feel like being the first BAME of a major London council is not encyclopedic, feel free to disagree. Jack4576 (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sure the closing admin will take into account how you demonstrated that a notability guideline is met. LibStar (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from my search almost all coverage is very local from "Inside Croydon". She fails WP:BIO and WP:NPOL. LibStar (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is the locality of coverage an issue? This is a local politician, one would expect their coverage to be local. Jack4576 (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a global encyclopaedia, not a village post. — kashmīrī TALK 17:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:NPOL. As far as I can see, NPOL doesn't provide different rules for people with different skin tones. — kashmīrī TALK 17:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL and that local coverage of local politicians is to be discounted per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All-Britain Junior Football Championship[edit]

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 10:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Later participants who had the opportunity to review the competing source assessments gave a clear consensus to delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sharif Zahir[edit]

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

Coverage in reliable sources is minimal and much below any notability guidelines. Fails WP:GNG easily. Source one does not mention the subject and is a government directory. Source two does not mention the subject. Source three seems to be a LinkedIn-type website that is neither independent nor reliable. Source four is the website of the subject's company. Source five is an interview. Source six is the website of the subject's company. Source seven is a mention on the website of a trade body the subject is a director of. Source eight does not mention the subject. Source nine does not mention the subject. Source ten does not mention the subject. Source eleven mentions he was one of 176 to receive a government certification/status card. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 10:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination – the title was created as a draft and made into a redirect to Ananta Group, but the article has been restored over the redirect multiple times by the draft creator, so there's not a lot of alternatives to an AfD. I made the same source evaluation as Vinegarymass911 when I re-restored the redirect; three new sources have been added since then (nos 8, 9, and 10 in the current version), but as Vinegarymass911 observes above, none of them mentions Zahir. All I find in a WP:BEFORE search for sources are trivial mentions and affiliated sources. --bonadea contributions talk 10:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nomination - More diversified information and sources are incorporated. Instead of giving a nomination to delete this page, we should consider the authenticity and add relevant sources. I just added many sources and relevant information based on his profile. Also, Harvard University did a report on him. His involvement with almost all the Bangladeshi Govt and private RMG institutions is remarkable.
I did a broad survey on him. All the mentioned sources proved his recognization. Unless this type of well-recognized person, who belongs WIKI page?
Requesting all except giving the nomination to delete please correct and input your relevant sources.@Bonadea@Vinegarymass911
Thanks for feedback. M.parvage (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: M.parvage (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. — Note to closing admin: M.parvage (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
There is still no coverage at all of Zahir himself in independent, secondary sources. When you say Harvard University did a report on him, do you refer to the biographical text in the programme for the "Bangladesh Rising" conference? (Page 8 in this). That's not a report, and it is not secondary – that kind of text is submitted by the speaker, it's not written by the organisation that hosts the conference. --bonadea contributions talk 10:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The organization definitely checked about Sharif before publishing, as it is Harvard. Additionally, The CIP persons are the most facilitated by the Bangladesh government, and he was awarded several times and still, he is a CIP. it reflects his independency. M.parvage (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @Vinegarymass911, As per your observations, I researched on Sharif Zahir, trying to find the authentic report. Then updated all the sources. You may check again. Hope everything is fine now, you can withdraw your claim. M.parvage (talk) 04:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@M.parvage: Each participant in the discussion may only make one bolded "keep" or "delete" comment. I have struck your duplicate "keep" for you. Please be aware of the fact that none of the sources you have added show any notability whatsoever for Zahir, for the same reasons as before. In addition, you have still not addressed the conflict of interest question on your user talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 05:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea: Thank you for letting me know about the duplicate comment. I apologize for the mistake and appreciate you striking it for me.
Regarding the sources I added, I believe they provide evidence of Sharif Zahir's notability based on the guidelines set out by Wikipedia. However, I understand that not everyone may agree with my assessment, and I respect that.
As for the conflict of interest question on my user talk page, I just addressed it and already taken the necessary steps to ensure that the article is neutral and unbiased. I believe that the content of the article should be judged on its own merits, rather than on any perceived conflicts of interest.
Thank you for your attention to these matters, and I look forward to continuing to contribute to the discussion in a constructive and respectful manner M.parvage (talk) 05:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The employees are sourcing keep votes on social media, I hope admins keeps a check on it and block keep votes account also. Anyways he fails notability, don’t delete it, burn it. 2409:40D4:101D:96B0:1121:7046:2FE2:A2FC (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a link to said post?Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing people of manipulating the vote is a serious allegation, and it should be supported by evidence. In this case, it seems that there is no evidence to support the claim that employees are sourcing keep votes on social media. Therefore, I believe that this accusation is unfounded and should not be taken seriously.
I would also like to remind that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines clearly state that personal attacks, harassment, and disruptive behavior are not tolerated. (like the word burn it). These actions undermine the integrity of the platform and can have a negative impact on the community.
Also, if there are valid concerns about the notability of Sharif Zahir, these should be raised in a constructive and respectful manner. The goal of Wikipedia is to provide accurate and reliable information to its readers, and we should all work together to achieve this goal. M.parvage (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea please don't do unnecessary things. Are you paid to do such things? There is no prove and the claim has no value as we as the user. Seems like an influential vote. As an experienced contributor you can struck such claims not bold. Thanks for understanding. M.parvage (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not paid to do anything on Wikipedia. The administrator who eventually closes the discussion will evaluate each !vote on its merits. An unsubstantiated claim that "keep" !votes are solicited elsewhere is not going to carry any weight, but there is no reason to strike the actual "delete" comment, and "burn it" is perhaps a childish thing to say but not a personal attack. Anyway, the only thing I did was fixing the formatting in the comment, to help other participants as well as the closing admin. Please stop bludgeoning the discussion. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 07:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Accroding to your (@Vinegarymass911) deletion submission on SHARIF ZAHIR, you pointed the article doesn't met the General Notability Criteria WP:GNG @Bonadea also raises voice to delete the article there. Then I do a broad survey on him to gather knowledge as it is my first creation in Wikipedia and found interesting and notable publications on him then updated the information from the sources.
Now the article on Sharif Zahir meets the general notability guideline of Wikipedia WP:GNG. The sources used in the article meet all criteria of notability and indicates this (Articles for deletion/Sharif Zahir) page is not require anymore.
1. Presumed
The article is about a living person who is notable in their field. Sharif Zahir is a Bangladeshi businessman and the managing director of Ananta Group, one of the largest conglomerates in Bangladesh. He is also a former director of the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA).
2. Significant coverage
The article has been cited by other reliable sources, including news articles, academic journals, and government websites. The article has also been discussed on social media and in online forums.
3. Reliable
The sources used in the article are reliable and credible. They are from reputable news organizations, academic journals, and government websites.
4. Sources should be secondary
The sources used in the article are secondary sources. This means that they are not original sources of information, but rather they are reports or analyses of primary sources.
5. Independent of the subject
The sources used in the article are independent of the subject. This means that they are not written by the subject or by someone who is closely associated with the subject.
In conclusion, the article on Sharif Zahir meets the general notability guideline of Wikipedia. The sources used in the article meet all six criteria of notability.
Here are some specific examples of the sources used in the article and how they meet the criteria of notability:
  • The Daily Star is a reputable news organization in Bangladesh. It has published several articles about Sharif Zahir, including one that discusses his business acumen and another that profiles his family.
  • The Journal of Business Ethics is an academic journal that publishes articles on business ethics. It has published an article about Sharif Zahir's work on corporate social responsibility.
  • The Government of Bangladesh website has a page about Sharif Zahir that lists his accomplishments and awards.
These are just a few examples of the many sources that have been used to create the article on Sharif Zahir. These sources are reliable, credible, and independent, and they provide significant coverage of Sharif Zahir's work and accomplishments M.parvage (talk) 07:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Here's a quick source assessment.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.shomoyeralo.com/details.php?id=186542 No Promotional piece quoting Zahir ? No Well, unlike most of the sources there's more than just a mention of his name, but it's not in-depth ✘ No
http://www.epb.gov.bd/site/files/b7045ee0-090c-432f-a1f4-cca103fb7804/- Yes Yes No Doesn't mention Sharif Zahir ✘ No
https://www.newagebd.net/article/156896/176-business-persons-to-get-export-sector-cip-status-in-bangladesh No Press release No Trivial mention ✘ No
https://rmgbd.net/2022/01/27-apparel-entrepreneurs-receive-cip-cards/ No Press release, same as source 3 No Trivial mention ✘ No
https://www.textiletoday.com.bd/32-textile-apparel-entrepreneurs-receive-cip-cards No Press release, same as source 3 No Trivial mention ✘ No
https://archive.dhakatribune.com/business/commerce/2017/11/13/cip-commercially-important-bangladesh No Press release No Trivial mention ✘ No
https://www.daily-sun.com/printversion/details/424529/182-businessmen-get-CIP-cards No Press release, same as source 6 No Trivial mention ✘ No
https://dspace.bracu.ac.bd/xmlui/handle/10361/2969 (dead link, archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20200222093925/https://dspace.bracu.ac.bd/xmlui/handle/10361/2969 ) ? No BA thesis ? ✘ No
https://theorg.com/org/ananta-group/org-chart/sharif-zahir No Business directory with user submitted bios No Marketing website ✘ No
https://www.thedailystar.net/supplements/news/he-dreamt-it-she-built-it-1778782 ~ Relies heavily on quotes from the person it's about Yes No reason to think it isn't No Trivial mention in an article about his mother ✘ No
https://www.thedailystar.net/news/fresh-arguments-in-humayun-zahir-murder-case-begin Yes Yes As above No Doesn't mention Sharif Zahir ✘ No
https://en.prothomalo.com/opinion/op-ed/lessons-from-three-black-chapters-of-the-banking-sector Yes Yes No Doesn't mention Sharif Zahir ✘ No
https://ibtbd.net/making-of-a-dream-2/ ~ Interview with Zahir, 100% primary Yes No About Ananta Group, not about himself ✘ No
https://www.thedailystar.net/business/news/family-businesses-thrive-values-innovation-1695850 No One of a number of short promotional blurbs about different companies Yes No About Ananta Group, not about Zahir ✘ No
Productivity Improvement in Apparel Manufacturing (book, previev available at https://books.google.com/books?id=PyH3DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA129&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&f=false ) No Zahir is a contributor to the book No About Ananta Group, not about Zahir ✘ No
https://www.kalerkantho.com/english/online/business/2023/01/20/47063 No Press release No Trivial mention ✘ No
https://www.bgmea.com.bd/page/BGMEA_monthly_session_on_Sector_Diversification_held Yes Yes No Trivial mention ✘ No
https://www.bssnews.net/business/51406 No Press release No Trivial mention ✘ No
https://www.bashundharagroup.com/article/safwan-sobhan-elected-bezia-president No Press release No Trivial mention ✘ No
https://www.bezia.net/members/list-of-members No Listing in a business directory No Trivial mention ✘ No
https://growthlab.cid.harvard.edu/files/growthlab/files/bangladesh_schedule_and_speakers_-_050718.pdf?m=1525723957 No Short speaker bio written by subject Yes No ✘ No
https://www.beza.gov.bd/economic-zones-site/government-owned-sites/mirsorai-chittagong/ No No mention of Zahir ✘ No
https://www.textiletoday.com.bd/ananta-group-set-6-new-factories-mez-producing-fabric-yarn/ No Press release No Trivial mention, the PR is about Ananta Group, not about Zahir ✘ No
https://archive.dhakatribune.com/business/2019/01/13/construction-work-of-mirsarai-economic-zone-on-in-full-swing ? ? No No mention of Zahir ✘ No
https://ordnur.com/economy/major-economic-contributions-rmg-sector-bangladesh/ ? ? No No mention of Zahir ✘ No
https://www.tbsnews.net/economy/trade/bangladeshi-lingerie-company-invest-us25m-chattogram-epz-145492 No Press release No Trivial mention ✘ No
https://dspace.bracu.ac.bd/xmlui/handle/10361/8849 No BA thesis ✘ No
https://www.thedailystar.net/news/ucb-gets-vice-chairman No Press release No Brief statement about Zahir's becoming vice chairman ✘ No
https://today.thefinancialexpress.com.bd/last-page/176-get-cip-cards-for-role-in-export-trade-1642704740 No Press release, same as source 3 No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

--bonadea contributions talk 10:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea Some of your assessment is not right. Especially the Source 1 and 2. Definately others also. Please do not do things intentionally. Previously you also blamed my talk page Please be 100% sure before write or comment.
Below Assesment FYI
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.shomoyeralo.com/details.php?id=186542 Yes Wrote about Sharif Zahir to acknowledge people Yes Launched in 2019. and reliable Yes Significant coverage avlailable. It doens't refer in depth. ✔ Yes
http://www.epb.gov.bd/site/files/b7045ee0-090c-432f-a1f4-cca103fb7804/- Yes Yes Yes His name mentioned in the CIP lists (Ex- 17 no in CIP-2018) ✔ Yes
https://www.newagebd.net/article/156896/176-business-persons-to-get-export-sector-cip-status-in-bangladesh Yes News from the Government of Bangladesh Yes News from the Government of Bangladesh is always reliable Yes Only 176 person Awarded and his name is mentioned there ✔ Yes
https://rmgbd.net/2022/01/27-apparel-entrepreneurs-receive-cip-cards/ Yes News from the Government of Bangladesh, as like source 3 Yes as like source 3 Yes His name is mentioned significantly is news from Government of Bangladesh ✔ Yes
https://www.textiletoday.com.bd/32-textile-apparel-entrepreneurs-receive-cip-cards Yes as like source 3 Yes Yes as like source 3 ✔ Yes
https://archive.dhakatribune.com/business/commerce/2017/11/13/cip-commercially-important-bangladesh Yes as like source 3 Yes as like source 3 Yes as like source 3 ✔ Yes
https://www.daily-sun.com/printversion/details/424529/182-businessmen-get-CIP-cards Yes as like source 3 Yes as like source 3 Yes as like source 3 ✔ Yes
https://dspace.bracu.ac.bd/xmlui/handle/10361/2969 (dead link, archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20200222093925/https://dspace.bracu.ac.bd/xmlui/handle/10361/2969 ) Yes clearly mwntioned about Sharif Zahir Yes Thesis from a best ranking University in Asia Yes Thesis was about UCB but Significantly mentioned the name, SHARIF ZAHIR ✔ Yes
https://theorg.com/org/ananta-group/org-chart/sharif-zahir Mentioned about Sharif Zahir writting about a reputed group of company and it is a long ago ? Unknown
https://www.thedailystar.net/supplements/news/he-dreamt-it-she-built-it-1778782 Yes This writting is about his and his family persons Yes Yes significantly mentioned about his familly ✔ Yes
https://www.thedailystar.net/news/fresh-arguments-in-humayun-zahir-murder-case-begin Yes Yes Provide knowledge about Sharif Zahir's father as well as family. ? Unknown
https://en.prothomalo.com/opinion/op-ed/lessons-from-three-black-chapters-of-the-banking-sector Yes Yes No as like previous ✘ No
https://ibtbd.net/making-of-a-dream-2/ Yes A popular media interviewed Sharif Zahir Yes Yes Provides knowledge about his involpement with Ananta group and contribution in RMG sector. ✔ Yes
https://www.thedailystar.net/business/news/family-businesses-thrive-values-innovation-1695850 Yes This writting is about 4 most reputed companies and their key person's thoughts, Sharif Zahir is on of them Yes no ques Yes About sharif's vision and work style ✔ Yes
Productivity Improvement in Apparel Manufacturing (book, previev available at https://books.google.com/books?id=PyH3DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA129&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&f=false ) Yes Zahir is a contributor to the book see details about the book Yes Yes about Zahir's work style ✔ Yes
https://www.kalerkantho.com/english/online/business/2023/01/20/47063 Yes Eventhough it is Press release, But IMF related news is very sensitive, especially for Bangladesh. Yes a reputed newspaper Yes Clearly mentioned ✔ Yes
https://www.bgmea.com.bd/page/BGMEA_monthly_session_on_Sector_Diversification_held Yes Yes Yes clearly mentioned that he is the Director of BGMEA ✔ Yes
https://www.bssnews.net/business/51406 Yes RMG Sustainability Council (RSC) publish this news. Yes No ques Yes clearly mentioned that he is a former Director of BGMEA ✔ Yes
https://www.bashundharagroup.com/article/safwan-sobhan-elected-bezia-president Yes Press release by Bashundhara Group but Sharif Zahir wasn't skipable Yes Yes unskipable person is Sharif Zahir, eventhough the publication was by Bashundhara Group ✔ Yes
https://www.bezia.net/members/list-of-members Yes Listing in BEZIA's official website Yes https://www.bezia.net/about/about-us can provide info regarding reliability Yes Provides info that he invopes with BEZIA ✔ Yes
https://growthlab.cid.harvard.edu/files/growthlab/files/bangladesh_schedule_and_speakers_-_050718.pdf?m=1525723957 Yes A short note from Harvard is a huge thing to consider Yes Yes Conciously but clearly mention about Sharif Zahir and his Career ✔ Yes
https://www.beza.gov.bd/economic-zones-site/government-owned-sites/mirsorai-chittagong/ (dead link) Active About Ananta group and Sharif is the key decesion maker Yes Govt Website ? Unknown
https://www.textiletoday.com.bd/ananta-group-set-6-new-factories-mez-producing-fabric-yarn/ Yes Press release NO Yes Yes It is about Ananta Group, But proves that how sharif working for the group as well as country. ✔ Yes
https://archive.dhakatribune.com/business/2019/01/13/construction-work-of-mirsarai-economic-zone-on-in-full-swing About Ananta group and Sharif is the key decesion maker Yes No No mention of Zahir ✘ No
https://ordnur.com/economy/major-economic-contributions-rmg-sector-bangladesh/ It is about RMG sector's Contribution in Bangladesh not for Sharif Yes It is about RMG sector's Contribution in Bangladesh not for Sharif It is about RMG sector's Contribution in Bangladesh not for Sharif ? Unknown
https://www.tbsnews.net/economy/trade/bangladeshi-lingerie-company-invest-us25m-chattogram-epz-145492 Yes BEPZA, A govt organization published this Yes Yes It is big contribution and sharif zahir is a part ✔ Yes
https://dspace.bracu.ac.bd/xmlui/handle/10361/8849 Yes clearly mwntioned about Sharif Zahir Yes Thesis from a best ranking University in Asia Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.thedailystar.net/news/ucb-gets-vice-chairman Yes PR by by UCB Yes Yes Clearly mentioned Sharif Zahir's Name ✔ Yes
https://today.thefinancialexpress.com.bd/last-page/176-get-cip-cards-for-role-in-export-trade-1642704740 Yes as source 3 Yes Yes ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
M.parvage (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am rather busy with real-life things and won't be spending any more time on this, also because WP:BLUDGEON is a thing and I don't want to commit that. I would just like to point out that you are misinformed about press releases – they are by definition not independent. See this information. Also, if you stop to think about it you will very quickly realise that when there are four copies of the same text, they can't all contribute to notability per GNG (and if there are four copies of the same press release, none of them contributes). Above you claim that there was an article about Zahir in Journal of Business Ethics. That source does not appear to have been used in the Wikipedia article. Interestingly, when I do a full-text search for his name in the journal archives of J Bus Ethics at EBSCOhost which cover all issues from 1982 onwards, I get no hits. If you do add that source, please do your fellow editors the courtesy to provide the basic bibliographic info; in the case of a journal article that would include the title, author(s), year of publication, volume, issue, and pages. Please do not ping me again. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 14:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is busy with their own life but also some people contributing and some are pretending.
According to your reply I removed the PR and there is only the Government website to good enough to present him as a CIP. But unfortunately you missed his name in those lists.
Thanks for understanding. M.parvage (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea, You have the patience of a saint. They are clearly misrepresenting sources and making ridiculous claims in a desperate attempt to preserve this article. I am refusing to engage with them; no point. Cheers, and happy editing.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take a moment to click on the blue-linked text "Significant coverage?" in the source assessment tables. You'll see why none of the sources that mention Sharif Zahir meets that requirement. That includes the lists linked from source 2 (as mentioned above, you have a responsibility to Wikipedia's readers and your fellow editors to provide information in the citations about what the source is – I could add that the onus is also on you to provide as specific a source as possible, and not leave it to the reader to guess that they have to click one of a dozen links on a fairly uninformative web page to find the info.) --bonadea contributions talk 13:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
well@Bonadea, At the below of the article, It is clearly mentioned that he awarded numerous times. And all his name is mentioned in all the CIP list expect one. So it doesn't mention all the link of sources. And if it is you can contribute to improve. Not only deletion is necessary. And another point is source 2, The article is fully against Sharif Zahir and it was an investigation report. So what do you think about it? Is it promotional? M.parvage (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bonadea's incredibly comprehensive source analysis. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BubbaJoe123456, Your mentioned person is still unable to prove his analysis is right. If you are ok with him then I would like to rely my this ques on behalf of him. And remember that, he blamed me without any reason. And it proves that he is doing things intentionally. Better to do your own. M.parvage (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Honest feedback:
    1. Looking at the table you assembled, you really need to read up on wikipedia standards for what constitutes a reliable source, and what constitutes evidence of notability.
    2. Responding to every single vote here, and your passion on this topic, creates the impression that you have some sort of conflict of interest in regards to the subject of this article. I'm assuming good faith, and taking you at your word that you don't have any sort of conflict, but the way you're acting is going to remind experienced editors of the behavior of COI editors. In short, it's not helping. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and source eval by Bonadea.  // Timothy :: talk  16:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of the 20 sources, 7 are independent (shomoyeralo.com, epb.gov.bd, The Daily Star [x3], BEZA, and Dhaka Tribune). The others are press releases, interviews, or capsule bios supplied by Zahir. Of the 7 independent sources, shomoyeralo.com has no reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Of the 6 independent and reliable sources, only 2 mention Sharif. Each contains a single sentence about him, with one adding a quote from him. One or more deeper links on epb.gov.bd may mention Zahir, but they're all in the form of directory listings. In short, there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. CIP is not a well-known and significant award or honor that would meet WP:ANYBIO. It is revealing that M.parvage, although denying any conflict of interest, has studiously avoided mentioning the widely reported allegations of money laundering.[29][30][31] If Zahir were notable, those allegations would belong in any Wikipedia biography of him. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 21:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've evaluated both source assessment tables. While the table by M.parvage appears to be a compilation of basic errors (such as erroneously claiming that Clearly mentioned Sharif Zahir's Name is an adequate justification for WP:SIGCOV), bonadea's table looks to be entirely correct. I'm not able to find other sources online that significantly cover this person and are independent of him, so I believe deletion is appropriate under WP:DEL-REASON#8. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per above. CastJared (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. North America1000 10:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disguised (esports)[edit]

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

Declined twice at AfC, simply moved to mainspace. Tagged for improvement, eventually moved back to draft, and then returned to mainspace by probably COI editor without improvement. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 09:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't know chief, this team has been mentioned in Sports Illustrated and many, many, many, many times in Dot Esports (SIGCOV example here). Decent mentions in Polygon and PC Gamer as well makes me feel like this is a notable team. It was obviously rejected for a reason, but I can only assume its creator didn't understand how to continue improving it. Regardless, now that it's in mainspace, WP:NEXIST applies, and it's unquestionably notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the organisation has received substantial coverage from independent sources. I have found some and added them to the article. I have also cleaned up some instances of bias I saw throughout. Think the article is fine for mainspace now. If it was still in its original state I would've advocated for it to be returned again to drafts. Jack4576 (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BEFORE turns up plenty of the usual independent sources for e-sports coverage (DOT, Dexerto, Polygon). Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zxcvbnm, clear significant coverage from outlets considered reliable per WP:VG/RS. PantheonRadiance (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GNG can be shown based on sources provided and mentioned here. WikiVirusC(talk) 16:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per notability Blitzfan51 the manager 16:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably leaning towards sending to draftspace. I can definitely see why this was rejected at AFC - it reads more like some notes someone compiled on a notepad more than an article. The sourcing is sorta there (some, like Dexerto, are absolutely not reliable sources) but it's plain to see it's not ready to be published until someone, you know, actually writes an article. Sergecross73 msg me 03:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Draftifying does discourage random editors from happening upon and improving it. I think it should be left there as it is unlikely it will be further improved by the original editor. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To each their own, but I can't give my blessing to publishing junk like this. It's simply not ready. Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I agree with you that this article's a mess, deletion isn't cleanup. What matters is whether a topic has sufficient evidence of notability, and it's already been proven. Instead of draftifying it, why not just leave a "Sources Exist" and "Cleanup" template to indicate that it can be improved and is notable? Sure, editors may not actively work on the article right now, but eventually a bold editor will take notice and rework the article. PantheonRadiance (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That would have been a slam dunk response had I advocated for deletion...but I didn't. I advocated moving it back into the draftspace cleaned up first. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just saying that I don't really see the need to draftify when a simple template to notify editors that it needs cleanup would suffice. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Draftifying is pretty much a Soft Delete if nobody bothers to improve it before 6 months. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Procedural close. Drafts belong in WP:MFD. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Thangalaan[edit]

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

Reason deleted Anogen60 (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. There is consensus on keeping. Keepers provided evidence that GNG is met (and NTEMP), while the only delete voter (excluding nom, who nominated it before sources were provided by two other users) did not give any explanations. (non-admin closure) Timothytyy (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Humphrey's Restaurant & Tavern[edit]

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

No significant coverage to meet GNG. 1 source is IMDB which merely confirms some trivia, another being a Wikipedia page as per WP:CIRCULAR. LibStar (talk) 06:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•Delete - Non-Notable PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Randykitty (talk) 08:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Santisuk Phromsiri[edit]

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

Just a supporting actor who can’t show any notability to meet WP:NACTOR. Htanaungg (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Thailand. Htanaungg (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article should be renamed to Santisuk Promsiri -- searching en wiki found 23 other articles referring to this spelling. The corresponding Thai wiki article list several national TV & film awards for him. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lerdsuwa: I still can’t find any RS with the new spelling – just a few random websites, which can’t verify the notability, appear on Google Search. Also, list of awards on Thai wiki is lack of citations. Htanaungg (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You should search the Thai name สันติสุข พรหมศิริ [33] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume good faith in Thai sources but nothing seems to be RS. If you find any reliable sources, pls feel free to provide them in the main article. Htanaungg (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    [34] this is news tagged with his name at Thai Rath, Thailand number 1 newspaper. Each picture in the banner and rows below it each represents a news article you can click and explore. Clicking down arrow shows more news article. I count 20 news there (it only goes back 5 years) which are not his prime. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or you can use Google news [35] which only includes source recognized as news source by Google. These are reliable sources. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily satisfies WP:NACTOR #1, having starred in the Boonchu film series, Muen and Rid, and Somsri #422R, just going by those covered in Thai Cinema: The Complete Guide. (2018). United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing. Please look into the history of an article before nominating for AfD, as they can, as in this case, contain valid information that some editors tend to overzealously remove in the name of demanding citations. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Article has been renamed to Santisuk Promsiri. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Single source is 404, so this is an unsourced BLP. BEFORE showed nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  10:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dead links are easily remedied when they are archived, as is the case here.[36] The most significant part of the subject's career was in the 1980s, so the bulk of in-depth sources, such as these old magazines[37][38][39][40], wouldn't be available online. That said, in-depth online sources also exist, such as this profile by the Thai Film Archive included in the press release for his induction into its "Star Square" in 2012.[41] There are recent entertainment news scoops from 2021 covering his personal life.[42][43] --Paul_012 (talk) 04:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a multitude of good references have been pointed through in the above thread, there appears to strong evidence that this actor was notable in the 80s. WP:NTEMP Jack4576 (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Permutational Number System[edit]

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

Unprodded with no improvement; prod rationale was 'Poorly decided acceptance by User:Dr vulpes of a poorly written draft whose only real source is an unpublished and un-peer-reviewed "ejournal" preprint'. On my talk, the draft creator and unprodder admits both to being the author of the preprint and to the fact that it is unpublished. Fails WP:NOR and WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok go take a look now I think everything is fixed now. Tagging @David Eppstein Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 02:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By "fixed" you mean made vague to the point of describing nothing specific, while removing the one bad source that uses the phrase "permutational number system". You have left the article with no sources at all that use the title phrase, or that talk about any class of number systems other than the factorial number system, which is standard, already well covered in its own article, has a different name, and only mentioned by way of a see also entry here. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In a search I could only find the one unpublished preprint covering the subject. Preprints are not reliable sources in the Wikipedia WP:RS sense, so this topic fails notability guidelines and is not even verifiable in RS. Without verifiability, there is nothing to base any content on, so that the topic doesn't even merit a mention in another article. If this topic ever becomes well-known enough to be covered in a reliable source like a review article, we can reconsider. Until then, the article should be deleted and the paragraph about it in factorial number system should go, too. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 04:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: agreed, basically just one reference to this term and that is the paper by apparently the same author of the W8ikipedia page. It WP:TOOSOON at best, there certainly aren't sufficient secondary or tertiary sources to establish notability. Just to emphasize, there is only one Wikipedia page linking to it, and that was just shoe-horned in by the page creator. Lithopsian (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tried to improve this article but I'll be honest with y'all my lack of math background prevents me from addressing the errors here at a high enough level. Sorry @David Eppstein for trying to correct my mistake and be collaborative, I'll see myself out. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 09:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nom is blunt in his criticism, but we recognize the honest mistake in accepting this at AfC and your good-faith efforts in trying to rescue the article. This article is tricky to adjudicate because it contains a number of RS for background, but not about the topic in particular, and only one inadequate source for the actual topic of the article. It's easy to be fooled in this case and really requires an understanding of the material to tease apart what part of the topic is reliably sourced and what is not. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 16:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G7 Atavoidturk (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ineligible at this point because the article has been substantially edited by at least two contributors. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and a request for future: When I wrote this article, I didn't have a good understanding of Wikipedia policy. I was trying to solve a math problem for my 11-year-old son and later after 3-4 months realized that nothing is published about it. So, I published it in pre-print and wrote a Wikipedia article as I was excited knowing that I have invented two new concepts in mathematics. Based on current Wikipedia policy, I am myself voting for deletion. But at the same time, I have some requests -
  • Source for evidence should be for events/news etc., but for pure science which itself is a fact can be verified by experts. This is important because there are many people with a new idea but do not have the expertise/guidance/money to get it printed in a notable general. Wikipedia can serve as a platform for such "science-articles" with some tag specifying that it is verified by Wikipedia reviewer and not any other article. Please do consider this in future whenever there is a. chance for policy modifications.
  • Whenever there is an article that is not plagiarized and completely new, but is written by immature/new authors, it would be great if Wikipedia can provide a helping hand to get it published somewhere. (If point 1 is not possible). I would be really grateful if subject experts like Professor @David Eppstein can provide me with guidance about my work.
  • Please see if the paragraph can be added in factorial number system as mentioned by @Mark viking
Pateldeepesh (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Only two pages to disambiguate, which already point to each other using hat notes. The city, IF anything, would be "choppa city" not "choppa". No one defended the arms term. Nabla (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Choppa (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Fails DAB, entries are a slang term, a circle ref, and a single BLP. BEFORE didn't show articles needing dab.  // Timothy :: talk  14:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Randykitty (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lovepump United Records[edit]

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

Defunct indie label which put out almost nothing of noting to have its own page. Website is closed and it hasnt released a record since 2011 Second Skin (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and New York. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All the coverages about this subject that I can found only ever mentioned it once as the lable company for some music product. Definite not enough coverages to prove its notability. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't even looked at the page yet but we shouldn't accept bad rationales on AfD. This one falls apart in light of WP:NTEMP. I won't !vote keep as Tutwakhamoe's !vote looks more solid than nom does. small jars tc 15:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete scattered mentions in Linkedin and on Facebook, which haven't been updated in a decade. No sources found for this defunct record label, was likely an attempt at PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lovepump United is no more, but they put out the original HEALTH albums, a group that went on to score Rockstar Games Max Payne 3, score Grand Theft Auto V: Arena War expansion (and do an original song for GTA V as well), the largest piece of entertainment in history. They also recorded an original song for Cyberpunk 2077, and its anime Edgerunners. CP2077 was the biggest game of its year and Edgerunners was awarded anime of the year by Crunchyroll. Not to mention their original music and collaborations with artists such as Nine Inch Nails. 2600:1700:4E00:2AB0:B503:4EA6:5A34:CD3E (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can provide some coverages of the company (News articles, books, interviews of the company managements, etc.), the company just doesn't pass the notability requirements with the currently cited sources. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The label neatly falls under what WP:MUSIC calls one of the more important indie labels; its roster is impressive - AIDS Wolf, Genghis Tron, HEALTH, The USA Is a Monster, Indian Jewelry, and more to boot released for the imprint. The article has a couple of interview pieces which are helpful for context and sourcing, and the label's offerings were routinely covered in the independent music press of the time. Chubbles (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Under WP:CORPDEPTH, notability of the product doesn't necessarily equal to the notability of the corporation tho. We'll need multiple independent and reliable sources to support the information given on the article, and as of now there aren't enough to prove its notability. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NCORP is not a good benchmark for label notability, though for some reason it keeps cropping up in such discussions. The notability of record label articles is best left to experts in music, rather than experts in corporations, and I have always held that we should look to the former for judgments on what label articles to keep and what to dismiss. Chubbles (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as you or any other editors can provide sufficient sources to the article, then I'll have no objection to keep. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been 3 days and not a single qualified source had been added. I'm starting to doubt the capability of these "experts in music" when it cames to proving the notability of a record company. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess, speaking for myself, I don't see that as a necessary condition for keeping the article, which already has a couple of sources (not inlined, but that's ultimately not determinative) and which has the necessary level of roster importance and coverage of its artists that it clears the threshold of what an expert in the area would want to see. I could spend hours (that I don't have) adding a bunch of reviews of Lovepump United releases, but that's neither helpful to readers of the article (it would just be to satisfy - or more likely, fail to satisfy - Wikipedia editors inclined to delete) nor likely to save it in this discussion (and the only reason to add them would be in the hopes this discussion would change as a result). In the larger scope, I'm seeing record label articles getting picked off more and more frequently, and in almost every case (when there are substantial numbers of notable artists on the label), all I see is a worse encyclopedia which fails to properly show the connections between artists on the same label; we lose the hyperlinked connective tissue that demonstrates why these bands are related to each other. I guess that means this becomes an(other) area where Wikipedia simply becomes an insufficient resource for information on a topic; thankfully, there are other websites, like Discogs, that are taking up the slack. Chubbles (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My guy, the three cited sources are either interviews (i.e. primary sources) or reporting by student newspaper. And none of the objectors can bring in any sufficient sources to prove its notability. Notability guideline was put in place for a reason, removing it doesn't necessarily make Wikipedia better.
    And as for "label articles getting picked off more and more frequently", well, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Other sites can have a page for every record company if they please, but Wikipedia honestly can't. Even if this AfD ended with keep, later some other editor might proposed another AfD, since the fundamental problem with the sourcing still exist.
    I have been participating in the deletion process of articles for a while now, and I can say with confidence that music is the area where the sourcing were the most severely insufficient. In the first decade of Wikipedia's existence, too many artists or organizations just put themselves or their products on this site without being held to the same standards as new articles created today. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"label articles getting picked off more and more frequently", I think Wikipedia in general had way too much leeway for music groups and labels back in the day, so removing these very niche labels is the right move. Fun anecdote: I did admittedly get a article for a band that my ex-girlfriend was in removed off the site (I'm not going to say what it was to avoid incriminating but it's not a popular band and you probably havent heard of it). I didn't do it because I was vindictive, but more so it was just a very mid band with only a couple thousand Spotify streams at most. Maybe that band was acceptable(-ish) back during the days of Myspace, and same can be said about this record label. Lovepump haven't done anything businesswise in over a decade. Perhaps at the time this page was made it seemed more plausible cuz the artist's albums that they (the label) put out could blow up bigger, and the roster itself could have grown more extensively, but neither happened. Arguably only Pictureplane and maybe Heat are (borderline) arguably "impressive" here Second Skin (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I cannot find a source that is unbiased, independent, and that contains a significant amount of information about this label. While I understand Chubbles' reasoning above, reliable, independent sources containing significant coverage must be found to justify the existence of any article, and this one fails these criteria. Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I am surprised this is up for AfD. This is a label with numerous internationally notable and established associated acts; that also has a substantial amount of local independent coverage from reviewers, interviewers, and local news. It didn't take much effort to uncover these sources through Google search. I've added a bunch of them to the opening section of the entry.
In 2011 the label was notable enough to have been identified by Billboard (magazine) as one of America's top 50 record labels. That, coupled with the notable bands under its wing, alongside independent coverage showing its cultural relevance to the LA indie scene, Canadian rock scene, and international music scene, I think makes an insurmountable case as to this label's notability. Jack4576 (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those websites are all WP:ROUTINE coverage and do not prove this label is notable. Nythar (💬-🍀) 19:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
False. They include reviews of the label and its material. That goes beyond what is described in WP:ROUTINE.
The Billboard top 50 label list is also clearly not WP:ROUTINE and is directly demonstrative of notability.
The notability of the acts associated with this label suggests that it is notable. Jack4576 (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to this list, then you're correct; it isn't WP:ROUTINE. It does not, however, significantly cover the subject. Nythar (💬-🍀) 01:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage is provided by other sources, including local reviews and other news from the music scene; Both in LA and Canada. Note that coverage can be significant even if it only occurs at a local level.
That top 50 list merely serves to add some weight to the case of notability. The numerous notable music acts under this label additionally adds to the case for notability.
I still think this is clearly a strong keep. I’d be interested to hear some other opinions. Jack4576 (talk) 05:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the reference to Billboard magazine? What is in the article is not Billboard magazine.  // Timothy :: talk  17:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and ORG. Source eval:
Comments Source
Interview 1. "Lovepump United". ckuw.ca. Retrieved 2023-05-09.
Promo bio about Jake Friedman. Not SIGCOV addressing the article subject directly and indepth 2. ^ "Jake Friedman". University of the Underground. 2018-02-21. Retrieved 2023-05-09.
Name listed, not SIGCOV. This is not Billboard magazine and no link to a source. 3. ^ "Billboards counts 50 best indie labels in America, are big fans of Tri Angle". dmy.co. Retrieved 2023-05-09.
Tour dates 4. ^ BrooklynVegan Staff. "RTX (Drag City) – 2008 Tour Dates (tonight, tomorrow, SXSW)". BrooklynVegan. Retrieved 2023-05-09.
Album promo 5. ^ BrooklynVegan Staff. "HEALTH remix LP out soon, here's the Pink Stallone MP3 (and dates, a ticket contest & other stuff)". BrooklynVegan. Retrieved 2023-05-09.
CD release and show promo 6. ^ BrooklynVegan Staff. "(Angel) Deradoorian releasing a CD & playing shows (win tix)". BrooklynVegan. Retrieved 2023-05-09.
Coverage is "it’s released via Lovepump Records" nothing more, no SIGCOV 7. ^ "Pictureplane: Thee Physical, PopMatters". PopMatters. 2011-07-26. Retrieved 2023-05-09.
Song of the Day, no SIGCOV about subject 8. ^ Writer, Staff. "Song of the Day: Fly away with Pictureplane". Columbus Monthly. Retrieved 2023-05-09.
Database record 9. ^ "Pictureplane - Thee Physical - Diggers Factory". www.diggersfactory.com. Retrieved 2023-05-09.
Tour data 10. ^ BrooklynVegan Staff. "HEALTH – 2010 tour dates w/ Indian Jewelry & Gold Panda, new remix CD & Eric Wareheim video". BrooklynVegan. Retrieved 2023-05-09.
Coverage is "has been associated with the American labels Lovepump United and Skin Graft Records" nothing more. No SIGCOV 11. ^ "Nocturne of October 7, 2011". MAC Montréal. Retrieved 2023-05-09.
BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from IS RS.  // Timothy :: talk  17:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus‎. I think there would likely have been on consensus even if this hadn't been a bundled AfD but it being bundled didn't help as some people weighed in on all of them, others only some of them, and for others it was unclear which way it was going.
Based on what I presume to be commentary about House of Monok, that outcome would be no consensus leaning keep. There is no dispute that a noble Monok house existed and be verified but the discussion was unclear about whether coverage exists to demonstrate notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

House of Monok[edit]

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

A noble family named Monoki existed in Hungary but scholarly works published in the 20th and 21th centuries do not refer to them. The article's sources are encyclopedias published in the 19th century that list more than 10,000 Hungarian noble families. We could hardly dedicate a separate article to each of them. Borsoka (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Elijah Monoky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because his notability has not been verified by references to 20th- and 21th-century scholarly works. He is mentioned in a handbook of Hungarian nobility published in the 19th century that mentions at least a hundred of thousands of Hungarian nobles. We could not create an article dedicated to each of them.
House of Mónek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because the article was verified by references to family research conducted by the article's creator. Borsoka (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Hungary. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep House of Monok. Yes, majority of the genealogical works were published already in the 19th century. However, this is no reason to discard these academic sources (Karácsonyi, Nagy Iván etc.), which have been cited extensively in publications since then. The Monoki family from the Bogátradvány clan provided barons and office-holders in the 14th century, for instance, Sandrin (master of the stewards) and Michael (vice-ispán of Sáros County), see Engel, Pál: Középkori magyar genealógia (CD-ROM), a 21th century source. Therefore, this noble family is one of the relatively important local (county) noble families, so it is notable. Elijah Monoky and House of Mónek are not notable, however. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your vote. However, Wikipedia:NOTGENEALOGY: the notability of one, two or three members of a family does not establish the notability of the family. Engel's work is a precious and reliable source but we cannot dedicate an article to each family with a member who held an office. Borsoka (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so we do not need to establish separate articles about family members, like Elijah Monoky, who is only known as a landowner. But the family, which descended from a prominent kindred, itself is notable. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the two House articles per Wikipedia is not a geneology site. Delete Elijah Monoky per fails GNG and BIO, sources show the individual existed but little else.  // Timothy :: talk  16:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage. BruceThomson (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. Please refer to the history of each article before voting. After the House of Mónek article was blanked and replaced by an AfD notice, another editor restored this version with the comment "raising AfD after blanking out the article is not a best practice; partial restore". References do not have to be published in the 20th or 21st centuries to ve reliable. A "handbook of Hungarian nobility published in the 19th century" can be a reliable source. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Eastmain:, in Hungary nobility made up more than 4% of the population. Are you sure that we should dedicate an article to each noble families and noble individuals? Yes, the handbook of Hungarian nobility published in the 19th century can be a reliable source but are you sure that a family that is not covered in modern literature is notable enough to present it in WP. Furthermore, House of Mónek is a hoax based on the creator's own research in archives and travelers' lists. No such noble house existed. Borsoka (talk) 02:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is based on primary, archival and genealogical resources, and thus is original research. The sources are list entries and short genealogical entries; none is expositive. Lamona (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. The House of Monok page does have enough valid sources to prove it's notability and significance. I do, however, think that more sources are needed for the articles. I agree with Eastmain. FranzSebastianvH‬ (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FranzSebastianvH: could you refer to reliable sources verifying the notability of Elijah Monoky and the non-existing noble House of Mónek? Borsoka (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FPT Young Talents[edit]

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

No significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. References 4-7 merely confirm non notable people involved, references 1-3 are its own website. LibStar (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_May_9&oldid=1155325156"