Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 18	November 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

List of exoplanets detected by radial velocity

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

With the number of planets detected by radial velocity growing more and more every month, it will be very difficult to maintain this list. It barely get updates and views and has little utility, anyone searching for radial velocity planets could search the NASA Exoplanet Archive instead, which is far more complete than this list. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, listing only notable entries (that is, with an article). I see no policy-driven deletion reason here. The maintainence argument, which is not a reason to delete, does not hold: if we have articles about these planets, we can include them on a list; the argument would maybe make sense if we needed to include every object discovered by radial velocity, but we don't. The existence of an external website listing such planets has no bearing at all on being the list appropriate for Wikipedia.--cyclopia ^speak! 09:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is this: we have a list that is forgotten and incomplete to the point of being unreliable. To resolve this, we either fill the list or delete it. I'll do what's easiest as the losses will be minimal. Lack of completeness can still be an argument for exclusion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stars in the Hipparcos Catalogue. Even if we are going to include notable discoveries only, at least 637 notable planets exist, this list has 354, so 284 planets to add, quite a lot. The effort to fix this list should be instead be directed to other activities, such as writing a new article or updating popular, widely-viewed ones. 21 Andromedae (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again: all concerns you bring up are valid, but they are to be met by editing, and in this case policy explicitly says we should not delete. We indeed have a huge amount of incomplete lists, which is only normal. It's not like we have a deadline. cyclopia ^speak! 10:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: from a practical standpoint, Wikipedia shouldn't try to replicate massive lists of objects that are better kept elsewhere (e.g. the Exoplanet archive). If we have a page, someone has to maintain it. Better to focus on things where wikipedia is a value add, instead of just trying to be a catalog. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(copied from the reply to the same comment in the the other analogous AfD) Of course it shouldn't try to replicate the Exoplanet archive. But "the same information is elsewhere" is not a cogent argument: all information on Wikipedia is elsewhere almost by definition, since we collect information based on sources. We have different selection criteria to make the list relevant for Wikipedia as, for example, listing only notable entries. We are indeed not a directory, but that is why we have the selection criteria above. cyclopia ^speak! 10:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since this list is potentially unbounded, we may want to consider segmenting the list by discovery date range. This will make it more manageable, since each date range can become a completed list. A precedent for this is the list of minor planets, since the numbering is approximately chronological by discovery. Praemonitus (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with User:Praemonitus. We could then edit this by segmenting the exoplanets' discovery dates, and it would not be misleading even if it were to be slightly not up to date, and thus buying us time to edit(of course, we would still have to update this list). As for the argument that the same information is found elsewhere, the fact is that you cannot just get to Wikipedia articles on exoplanets simply by clicking links on the Exoplanet Archive. Pygos (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of transiting exoplanets

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

Was a useful list in the past, but it became outdated and is hardly updated. The number of transiting exoplanets has grown massively, so it is nearly impossible to maintain this list. Just to fill up the missing entries it would take a huge effort of many people and months, and given that only 200 people see this list every month this effort would not be rewarded. The Exoplanet Archive already do the job to catalog these planets, making this list useless. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Normally the incompleteness of a list isn't a reason to get rid of it. We have some absurdly long lists in astronomy, and they will never be fully complete. That being said, sites like the Exoplanet Archive are going to be better at processing and maintaining this information. Why do we need to reproduce them? Praemonitus (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, listing only notable entries (that is, with an article). I see no policy-driven deletion reason here. The maintainence argument, which is not a reason to delete, does not hold: if we have articles about these planets, we can include them on a list; the argument would maybe make sense if we needed to include every object discovered by transit, but we don't. The existence of an external website listing such planets has no bearing at all on being the list appropriate for Wikipedia.--cyclopia ^speak! 09:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (copying my comment from the RV deletion discussion) from a practical standpoint, Wikipedia shouldn't try to replicate massive lists of objects that are better kept elsewhere (e.g. the Exoplanet archive). If we have a page, someone has to maintain it. Better to focus on things where wikipedia is a value add, instead of just trying to be a catalog. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it shouldn't try to replicate the Exoplanet archive. But "the same information is elsewhere" is not a cogent argument: all information on Wikipedia is elsewhere almost by definition, since we collect information based on sources. We have different selection criteria to make the list relevant for Wikipedia as, for example, listing only notable entries. We are indeed not a directory, but that is why we have the selection criteria above. cyclopia ^speak! 09:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since this list is potentially unbounded, we may want to consider segmenting the list by discovery date. This will make it more manageable, since each date range can become a completed list. A precedent for this is the list of minor planets, since the numbering is approximately chronological by discovery. Praemonitus (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with User:Praemonitus. We could then edit this by segmenting the exoplanets' discovery dates, and it would not be misleading even if it were to be slightly not up to date, and thus buying us time to edit(of course, we would still have to update this list). As for the argument that the same information is found elsewhere, the fact is that you cannot just get to Wikipedia articles on exoplanets simply by clicking links on the Exoplanet Archive. Pygos (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per multiple points of WP:NOT.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. Please base your arguments in policy and refer to sources. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in Time (Doctor Who)

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

A box set that released various Doctor Who serials that had episodes missing. The article is predominantly uncited and contains almost entirely primary citations, and a brief BEFORE turns up very little outside of watch guides for missing episodes. I can see a redirect to Doctor Who missing episodes as an AtD, but overall this is a largely non-notable DVD box set release not separately notable from the concept of missing episodes. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Television. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete per nom; not even significant enough for a redirect. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
It's not a term that barely anyone would search, but User:Redrose64 has shown it's unique (even though no reliable source mentions that, the uniqueness is evident at a glance). Redirect to Doctor Who missing episodes DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Who missing episodes, redirects being cheap, and all. While there is obviously no content for a merge here, the "missing episodes" article does very briefly touch on the content of the set. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Redirects are cheap, but "Lost in Time" is so insignificant, searching for it with Doctor Who appended gives results mostly for the game of the same name(and there are lot of missing episode boxsets, so this isn't special. No need for redirecting. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoctorWhoFan91: This one is special, see my keep !vote below. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This DVD set was unique, as it gathers together in one package all of the odd episodes which couldn't justifiably be released as a single-story DVD. The criterion at the time that it was compiled was that if a story had more than half of its episodes in the BBC archives, it would get a standalone release; if it had 50% or fewer, the episodes went into Lost in Time, together with any associated clips. Also included was all surviving material for those stories where no complete episodes remained. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for mentioning this, as this info is not at either page. Though, is there a reliable source for this? I couldn't find one in a google search. Also, still would not meet WP:GNG, so it should a redirect at best. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some time between 2004 and 2009, I found that information at one or more of the following - I only recorded access dates for a few of them:
BBC Shop

DVD.CO.UK

Doctor Who on DVD (accessed 2 April 2008)

DVD Times

Find DVD

Doctor Who Restoration Team

Time Rotor Fault Locator (accessed 28 July 2008)

Time Rotor Hidden Danger (accessed 31 July 2008)

The TARDIS Library
All are now dead except the last one. IIRC, the Doctor Who Restoration Team link gave the most comprehensive information, hopefully it's been archived somewhere. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checked all of them on the Wayback Machine- a couple are dead, but the ones with archived versions do not mention this info (though looking through the list does make it clear that its true). Doctor Who missing episodes actually does mention it, but its unreferenced. Also, its the only significant bit about it, with all necessary info already at DW missing episodes- a redirect at best. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64 Sure, the release was unique, but being a unique release doesn't automatically indicate a subject is notable standalone. All of your links have been to fan-sites, fan projects, and shopping sites. None of these are reliable, secondary coverage which shows this subject is notable. Regardless of its release status, it needs coverage to justify being a standalone article, and none of that has been shown yet. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found a reliable source for the orphaned episode mention- [1], Lost in Time, a triple DVD set containing ‘orphaned’ episodes from the series. Redrose64 - It's still not enough for a 'keep'. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a bit of trouble parsing the meaning, but I think Who's 50 p. 54 backs up the summary of the approach for content selection of these DVDs by Redrose64. Daranios (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have arguments to Delete, Keep and Redirect this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Liz I think the consensus is "Redirect"- I changed my !vote to redirect (prior to the relisting), the nom is fine with a redirect, and Redrose64's !vote does not show it meets WP:GNG, only that it's unique. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can anyone with more knowledge say if the chapter "Lost in Time" in Alan Kistler's Doctor Who: A History, starting p. 81, refers to this DVD set or not? Daranios (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not; it's just a two-page subsection of a different chapter. It addresses the missing episodes generally, but not this DVD set. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Doctor Who missing episodes for now: I've seen mentions in a number of secondary sources like The Doctor Who Error Finder, Who's 50, p. 54, Die Dechiffrierung von Helden, p. 155, which would not support a stand-alone article, but would lend themselves to some expansion of the brief mention at the target. Daranios (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federal parliamentary republic

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

Seems to be a wholly synthetic topic isolating the intersection of Federalism and Parliamentary system for no reason other than it's a phrase often found in infoboxes. There seems to be no discussion of the subject in its own right, and there do not appear to be sources from my checks either. There are likely more than a handful of other articles of this kind. Likely some should be merged somewhere, but the utility of anything seems marginal. Remsense ‥ 论 23:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Politics. Remsense ‥ 论 23:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Parliamentary republic. There is coverage: [2] [3] and Cheryl Saunders, "Federal Parliamentary Republics" (2021), which is apparently offline. James500 (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AnyDecentMusic?

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. Sources on article appear to be all promo reviews, primary sources, or an interview. No significant coverage found in searches. Seawolf35 HGAV (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I found this source but couldn't find anything else to establish notability. I could be convinced to vote the other way if more people come forward with better sources. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is fairly notable. The article just needs more sources. —theMainLogan (t•c) 06:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheMainLogan Just needs more sources? Sources I wasn’t able to find. Did you find more sources? --Seawolf35 ^T--C 16:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the article "just needs more sources" is not a reason to keep the article; it is unhelpful commentary that points out the obvious. Please show us actual sources that establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Willard

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV. Fails GNG and WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C. J. F. Campbell

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

Not notable local politician Lost in Quebec (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Florida. Lost in Quebec (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, mayors are not deemed "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to pass WP:NPOL #2 on a depth and volume of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage that enables us to write a substantive article about their political career: specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But as is so often the case for bad articles about mayors, this consists almost entirely of background biographical trivia about his personal life, referenced to primary sources, with no substantive information about his mayoralty and no GNG-building sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Thomas (footballer)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article already had two things going for it, both a reasonable claim to notability, and sources that can well be considered sigcov (namely Stuff). The nomination therefore falls flat in failing to argue why "Article fails WP:GNG". In addition, from a summary search I found [4] [5]. In total, I believe it passes the sigcov bar Geschichte (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, barely passes SIGCOV in my opinion. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough sources provided to pass WP:SIGCOV.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 21:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohawk Warrior

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

This doesn't appear to meet WP:N, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Other than warriors from the Mohawk nation, there is no coverage of a monster truck. Not sure how we're supposed to evaluate sources in the article when there are none... ah the wild west early days of wikipedia. Sources, we don't need no stinkin sources (google it kids, it's a good movie). Oaktree b (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see a bunch of potential sources...
Articles mentioning driver Bryce Kenny:1 2 3
Articles mentioning driver George Balhan: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
other small mentions: 1 2 3

Lisa Winning

AfDs for this article:

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

Newly recreated promotional bio of an Australian businesswoman; fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. I can't see the version deleted last year so don't know if it's sufficiently identical to warrant a speedy deletion, but the sources in this one do not support notability. They are WP:PRIMARYSOURCE interviews ([6], [7], [8], [9]), WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of Winning that do not constitute WP:SIGCOV of her ([10], [11], [12], [13], [14]), or WP:USERGENERATED sources ([15], [16]). I checked to see whether her book He Texted would qualify her under WP:NCREATIVE, but the only reviews I found were on user-generated sites and thus there's no pass there. The one source that might fit the bill is in a vaguely promotional platform and written by a non-staff contributor who is not a journalist. Nothing found in WP:BEFORE search that works. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Australia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT. Like last time, purely promotional. Subject not notable, company not notable, and award not notable. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 00:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as nom's analysis shows, sources are not reliable or sufficiently indepth to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Checked deleted version, not eligible for WP:CSD#G4. Also, not convinced salting is called for here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kunwar Sone Singh Ponwar

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

Page was created in 2008 and since then only consists of a single sentence. Likely fails WP:GNG. Could redirect to Chhatarpur State#History (Apologies for any Formatting errors). S302921 (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. What a mess. I see a few Google book references under “Kunwar Sone Shah”, but I’m not sure if they count as significant coverage. I’ve done my fair share of rescues this month, so this is not my circus. Bearian (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Graham (businessman)

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

Non-notable businessman. Sources are primary and/or non-independent, and none of the sources offers significant coverage, so WP:BASIC is not met. bonadea contributions talk 21:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. bonadea contributions talk 21:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I researched this case and I believe that Mr. Graham meets the notability criteria outlined in Wikipedia's guidelines, particularly the General Notability Guideline (GNG), as he has received significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources.

Significant Coverage in Reliable Sources:

"Getting Locked Out Inspired Me to Start New App" Publication: [BBC] This article discusses how Mr. Graham's personal experience led to the creation of the JustFix app, showcasing his innovation in addressing common household issues.
"How Startup Founders Are Trying to Rewrite the Investment Rules" Publication: [Forbes] This piece features Mr. Graham among other entrepreneurs who are pioneering new investment strategies in the startup ecosystem.
"Top Strategies for Startup Leadership Success" Publication: [CXO] An exploration of effective leadership strategies where Mr. Graham's approaches and insights are highlighted.
"The Comfort of Control: Unpacking the Success of On-Demand Services" Publication: [The Independent] An analysis of on-demand services featuring Mr. Graham's contributions through JustFix.
"Valiant CEO: Top 20 Businesses to Watch in 2024" Publication: [Valiant CEO] JustFix, founded by Mr. Graham, is listed among the top businesses to watch, indicating significant industry impact.
"Three Startup Success Tips from JustFix Founder Adam Graham" Publication: [Economic Insider] Mr. Graham offers advice to aspiring entrepreneurs, indicating his role as a thought leader.
"Revolutionizing Investment Strategies: Startup Founders Leading the Way" Publication: [Funderlyst] Features Mr. Graham's innovative approaches to investment and business growth.
"JustFix: Nationwide Launch of the App Redefining Home Maintenance with Speed and Convenience" Publication: [Yahoo Finance] The national launch of JustFix, highlighting how Mr. Graham's app is redefining home maintenance with a focus on speed and convenience.
"New Business to Deliver Fastest Fixes in Urgent Home Repairs Market" Publication: [ABC MONEY] Discusses how JustFix, under Mr. Graham's leadership, is positioned to provide the quickest solutions in the urgent home repairs market.

Media Appearances:

Television: "Adam Graham: Redefining Home Maintenance with JustFix" A TV segment where Mr. Graham discusses the impact of JustFix on the home maintenance industry.
Podcast: "MoFounders Podcast: How to Disrupt an Outmoded Industry and Scale an App Nationwide" Mr. Graham shares insights on industry disruption and scaling a tech startup.

The above sources are independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage of Mr. Graham's work and contributions to the industry. They demonstrate his notability as an entrepreneur and justify the retention of his Wikipedia page.

If we were to delete his page based on the current criteria, it would necessitate the deletion of numerous other pages of individuals with even less coverage or impact. Therefore, rather than removing the page, it would be more appropriate to update it with additional information and the sources provided above to improve its completeness and align it with Wikipedia's standards.

----

Stelios2121 (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a look at those sources. Sources 1 and 2 in your list are already in the draft. I appreciate that source evaluation is tricky and that you have had a very long break from Wikipedia editing, so I'll to go into a bit of detail regarding all the sources you suggest. The table got rather large – click "show" to see it.

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
1	N	Y	Y	N	N	A brief piece based almost entirely on quotes from Graham, which "showcases" nothing and (more to the point) does not show notability.
2	N	N	N	N	N	Based entirely on an interview. Regarding reliability, see WP:FORBESCON.
3	?	N	?	N	N	No named author, interview on a website which to all appearences offers a marketing platform for businesspeople.
4	N	N	N	N	N	Graham is not the main focus of this article. In addition, it is clearly labelled as advertising, see this info.
5	N	Y	?	Y	N	A short review of the JustFix app, in a list of 20 reviews of different products, which only mentions Graham in passing.
6	N	N	N	N	N	Clearly labelled as "branded content", and based entirely on quotes from Graham.
7	N	N	N	N	N	This is just a shortened version of the Forbes contributor piece, no 2 in this list.
8	N	N	?	N	N	Press release. May or may not be considered a reliable source, but is useless for all purposes except to show that the application JustFix exists.
9	N	N	?	?	N	Press release or similar, as its byline is "ABC Staff" rather than a named writer. I am not familiar with the website abcmoney.co.uk but I see that they welcome contributions in the form of "guest posts" or advertorials, and the tone of this article is clearly promotional rather than informational.
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

The TV segment has the label "By: Impact Team (Sponsored Content)" so it is not independent, reliable, or secondary, and the podcast is him talking so also not secondary. --bonadea contributions talk 15:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise, only two your suggested sources are independent, none provides significant coverage, and most are not reliable. That there may be other articles about non-notable people isn't a factor when we discuss whether this person is notable or not. --bonadea contributions talk 15:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alehouse dagger

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

There is only 1 source and I have been unable to find any sources for this weapon. I left a message regarding this issue months ago and no new sources have been added. The bibliography is copied from the single source. I suspect the single source was made by the creator of this article due to the lack of other reliable sources and because both go by Paul. Possible WP:SELFCITE Urchincrawler (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it only seems to feature in Thomas Nash's book and references to that. I'm not sure what the 14 books listed in the Bibliography are supposed to prove. Mztourist (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gelbis

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

The only online source for this custom is a WordPress blog that published a piece on this one month before the Wikipedia page was created. I cannot find any other sources for this custom. Tooncool64 (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nomination. Could find no source that would indicate the article is justified.Spiralwidget (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This also appears to be a name and a location... I can't find anything about a wedding ceremony. Unsourced article that doesn't show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Had previously tried to find this via google and the Somali wiki, and failed completely as well. Coeusin (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sources that pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete': not WP:N. Headhitter (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - and WP:MADEUP. Bearian (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (admins please relist) to Wedding customs by country#Somalia per WP:ATD. There isn't enough for WP:SIGCOV but this is a real thing. See the newly added cited book reference in the article which was published by ABC Clio. You can also see videos of this custom on YouTube and pinterest. It's not WP:MADEUP, and there is good merge target. @Bearian, Headhitter, Tooncool64, Oaktree b, Coeusin, Suonii180 what do you all think of this WP:ATD?4meter4 (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow for consideration of new sources brought up after most comments were made in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourced to a cookbook, I don't consider that any sort of acceptable sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Tooncool64 (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree. Coeusin (talk) 11:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This poorly sourced article does not meet WP:GNG.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consulting Engineering Center - Sajdi and partners

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (Organizations and companies) as I can't find any good sources for the subject. I also believe that the user who created the page (User:Engineerconsultant) might have a conflict of interest due to their name. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Engineering, and Jordan. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a blatant WP:PROMO. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hatzichristos

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

No refs on the page for many years. Searching for refs is difficult because it appears that there have been people with this word as part of their name. I don't speak Greek, I would be interested to see if others can find anything relevant. JMWt (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and Greece. JMWt (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well it seems it is a dance - a search brings up dancers doing it on YouTube clips so potentially sourceable, though the fact there’s no Greek article about it doesn’t bode well. Mccapra (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Pendleton

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

Biography of a dentist and local political activist, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for dentists or activists. From its creation in 2020 until today, this was a short stub staking its notability on leading a local political activism committee, and was sourced entirely to just one obituary in his local newspaper -- but one local obituary isn't enough to get a person over WP:GNG all by itself, and leading local committees isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to pass GNG.
Then within the past 24 hours, an anonymous IP vastly expanded it with a lot of additional information that may have been gleaned partly from private insider knowledge, without adding even one new source to support any of the new information, and there's still nothing in the newer information that would clinch free passage of WP:NPOL if the article is still referenced entirely to just one local obituary.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived media coverage from the Shreveport area than I've got can find improved sourcing for it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just a local obituary for referencing. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Louisiana. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Vast section and paragraphs are mostly uncited and includes only one reference. and also subject is notable for one event, per WP:1E it doesn't fulfill significant coverage criteria.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He seems to be an important local figure in the Civil Rights Movement in Shreveport both according to his obituary and his inclusion on a black history media page (click on his article) This is also this news article (while from a local channel website; was a reposting of a CNN piece) which called him the first African-American dentist in Shreveport. He is also mentioned in this U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Report. Altogether, I think there is a credible claim to notability.4meter4 (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Credible claim to notability" or not, we'd have to see a lot more reliable sourcing than has been brought to bear before a notability claim would turn into a notability lock. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two solid sources with in-depth coverage between the CNN piece and his obituary, and some minor ones pointing towards wider notability. Collectively I think this demonstrates notability. Ideally we would have a third strong source per WP:THREE; hence why the "weak keep" as opposed to keep.4meter4 (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources isn't enough for GNG. If a person doesn't have "inherent" notability (e.g. holding an NPOL-passing office) that would require us to keep an article irrespective of its current quality of sourcing, then it takes quite a bit more than just two pieces of GNG-worthy coverage to get them over the "notable because media coverage exists" hump. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 by nominator(non-admin closure)‎

Holy Boy's Cave

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

It's a place that exists, but I don't see adequate independent coverage. Redirect to List of caves in Gibraltar Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-a search using Google has revealled a few including a listing by the government noting its importance. Victuallers (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The gov source links its info to a self published blog. It can't be trusted as a reliable source.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the largest caves in Gibraltar, believed to be archaeologically important and the fact that it is listed in the Heritage and Antiquities Act 2018 establishes notability, however sparse the coverage. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GEONATURAL, and plenty of sources about this feature. The listing referred to by Dr Blofeld an additional reason. I'd expect a snow keep here, but we'll see. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not gonna make anyone wait it out. Consider me convinced. WITHDRAW as nom. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No valid rationale provided and no reasonable chance of being deleted. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilsa, the Tigress of Siberia

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

This article describes the final installment in the *Ilsa* series, following its controversial exploitation themes. The use of common female names like "Ilsa" associates them with violent and degrading depictions, raising concerns about real-world stigmatization. The film holds no significant cultural or historical value and is unsuitable for a platform accessible to all audiences, including minors. I recommend deletion to prevent societal harm. Plus, this series of articles describes exploitation films from the 1970s with explicit pornographic content, featuring a Nazi officer as a protagonist engaging in sexual acts with prisoners. These films not only glorify sexual violence and objectify women but also risk promoting unhealthy fantasies about Nazism among immature male audiences. Such content is deeply inappropriate for a public platform like Wikipedia, which is accessible to users of all ages. The timing of the articles' more languages' creation (2022–2023) further suggests potential misuse for malicious or inappropriate purposes. I strongly recommend the deletion of all related articles to prevent societal harm and uphold Wikipedia's standards of neutrality and appropriateness.

Speedy Keep No legitimate deletion rationale provided. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTCENSORED and general common sense. Toughpigs (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Disruptive nomination. -Mushy Yank. 19:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: No deletion reason given, and we aren't censured. Propose a WP:SNOW close. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No valid rationale provided and no reasonable chance of being deleted. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilsa, Harem Keeper of the Oil Sheiks

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

This article describes a sequel to the controversial exploitation film *Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS*. Similar concerns apply, as the use of common female names associates them with violent and degrading depictions. The sequel lacks cultural or historical significance, and its graphic nature continues to make it unsuitable for an open platform accessible to all audiences, including teenagers and children. I recommend deletion as the societal harm outweighs any limited academic relevance.Plus, this series of articles describes exploitation films from the 1970s with explicit pornographic content, featuring a Nazi officer as a protagonist engaging in sexual acts with prisoners. These films not only glorify sexual violence and objectify women but also risk promoting unhealthy fantasies about Nazism among immature male audiences. Such content is deeply inappropriate for a public platform like Wikipedia, which is accessible to users of all ages. The timing of the articles' more languages' creation (2022–2023) further suggests potential misuse for malicious or inappropriate purposes. I strongly recommend the deletion of all related articles to prevent societal harm and uphold Wikipedia's standards of neutrality and appropriateness.

Speedy Keep No legitimate deletion rationale provided. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The deletion rationale is nonsense. Toughpigs (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Disruptive nomination. -Mushy Yank. 19:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: No rational given, propose a WP:SNOW close. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the nominator has failed to explain why they think the film is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Levant Cave

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

Not independently notable. Should be to be redirected or merged to Upper Rock Nature Reserve. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mediterranean Cave

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

Non-notable, fails WP:GNG. Can't access the book, but the name suggests that it likely has only passing coverage. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This cave is important, as are the others linked in the Caves of Gibraltar navbox at the bottom of the article . Per the external links I just added: HM Government of Gibraltar Ministry for Heritage; and also National Geographic — Maile (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly didn't read that Nat Geo article, because it says that the cave being discussed is off the coast of France. The other article links it's entire content to the website here, but that is a self-published blog. Neither of these are a reliable source.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I may have found a source: [17], which was cited by another source [18]. PrinceTortoise (he/him) ^{(poke • inspect)} 09:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~That source is primary. Topic fails WP:GNG even if the book has significant coverage. Delete.~~ PrinceTortoise (he/him) ^{(poke • inspect)} 09:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've only looked for ten minutes and I can see its notability by reference to the government, the illustrated London News, and a noted academic. There seems to be insufficient research before the nomination. Being an unreliable source isnt catching. Just because (for instance) The Times quotes a blog it doesnt then write off its long history or reputation for reliability. Victuallers (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've shown up in a bunch of these, say something like this, and then don't link your sources. I'm happy to withdraw noms if I think I'm wrong, but please provide sources and don't just tell people the exist. If I could have found them, I wouldn't have nominated! I also don't appreciate the bit about insufficient research. Also, if the Times lifted all its words nearly word for word from the blog, and then published as fact, I would never quote that, because its basically just the blog. A good source can still produce sloppy journalism.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only because there are a "bunch of these". The blog that gets quoted by the Times (say) becomes more notable. Sure mistakes happen but we AGF good sources. If the government expert websites are quoting someone then they think s/he is notable than we usually assume - and they may be right. The sources you requested are quoted in the article. Sorry if you "don't appreciate" but there are a "bunch of these". Victuallers (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed my point. Just because I can't find sources doesn't mean I didn't do enough research. It just mean that I only know so much about it. It's not shocking that someone with 165k edits has better research abilities than me, and it's not cool to assume that I didn't do a before. Just point something out without the attitude, that's all.

As a side note, those are excellent sources and I think I can get at least a B class article out of them. Changing to keep, per sources I couldn't find.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my delete. Thanks Victuallers. PrinceTortoise (he/him) ^{(poke • inspect)} 01:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I think that I am allowed to withdraw. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets GNG and WP:NATFEAT. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fausta Shakiwa Mosha

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:PROF. As far as I can tell, this person is a reasonably accomplished academic with some publications under her belt, and has held some medium-high level positions at the WHO, but that's it. She does not have any of the achievements laid out in the academic notability guideline and is the subject of almost no independent, significant coverage. Based on the article's promotional tone and the fact that the creator has made no edits to Wikipedia other than the creation of this article, I believe it was made by someone with a COI. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Medicine, and Tanzania. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This appears a case of a meritorious but not out-of-the-ordinary career that does not yet reach encyclopedic notability. Not seeing anything that would meet WP:PROF at this time. Some of the promotional wording appears to have been added recently by an IP, the original version isn't so bad. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, my mistake on the timeline of the addition of the promotional language. But yes, I agree on the overall assessment. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,

I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this discussion. I want to address the concerns regarding notability and the perceived promotional tone of the article.

1. Notability and Independent Coverage: Dr. Fausta Shakiwa Mosha, while indeed an academic and professional within the public health sector, has contributions that extend significantly beyond ordinary academic achievements. Her role as a Senior Laboratory Advisor at WHO, along with her previous positions at WHO AFRO and WHO EMRO, position her as a key player in international public health. Her work has directly impacted policies and practices in over a dozen countries across Africa, the Caribbean and the Middle East.

a. Sources and Coverage: Dr. Mosha has been instrumental in significant projects such as the East Africa Public Health Laboratory Networking Project funded by the World Bank and has played a pivotal role in the implementation of cooperative agreements with the US CDC, which have had substantial public health implications globally. I will add citations from these projects and her 49 scholarly articles and a book chapter that contribute to her standing in the field.

2. Academic and Professional Achievements: Regarding WP, Dr. Mosha's career includes high-level advisory roles and directorial positions that have shaped laboratory practices and epidemiology training programs across continents. This involvement goes beyond medium-level academic positions and includes leadership that has effected measurable change in international public health strategies.

3. Promotional Tone: I acknowledge the concerns about the promotional tone. Changes have been made to ensure the language is neutral and factual, focusing on her contributions and roles without subjective embellishments. I urge the community to review the revised content, which adheres more closely to Wikipedia's standards for neutrality.

In conclusion, Dr. Mosha's contributions are not only notable but have a lasting impact on global public health infrastructures, making her a subject of encyclopedic interest and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Her extensive body of work and leadership roles provide significant independent coverage and recognition within her field, fulfilling the notability criteria.

Thank you for considering this response, and I look forward to further constructive discussion. 154.118.225.194 (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. Would you mind clarifying if you have any off-Wiki relationship to the subject of the article? --AntiDionysius (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your follow-up question. I would like to clarify that I do not have any personal, professional, or financial relationship with Dr. Fausta Shakiwa Mosha. My interest in contributing to this article is purely based on my recognition of her significant contributions to public health, particularly within the realms of global health security and epidemiology, which I believe warrant an encyclopedic entry due to their impact and scope.

I am committed to ensuring that the content on Wikipedia is accurate, neutral, and verifiable and have endeavored to present Dr. Mosha's career and achievements based on reliable sources and factual information. 154.118.225.194 (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there were a case for notability, it would be great to keep this article about a woman scientist. But the referencing in both the version at the time this AfD discussion was started and the current version is poor. The article doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. I've searched and cannot find references to add. Tacyarg (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaoli Isshiki

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

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

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

Keep: I haven't looked at those yet, but the English article is now referenced. For me, she is notable enough, having made interesting recordings, with notable ensembles and conductors, and only favourable reviews. She is not a diva-type soprano: that should not be a reason to delete. The article serves many links to music that is not normally in focus, both Baroque as contemporary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the French sources, I need help to not misread the French:
1. [19] This Le Monde article says that she won a prize.
2. [20] This is a more detailed review of her singing (not just "outstanding").
3. [21] recital
4. [22] recording --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt I don't think this in-depth enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. The last source is selling her CD and is not independent or significant coverage. The prod-s.com website also lacks independence. The Le Monde article spends half a sentence on her, and is a smaller not all that notable prize. The main prize went to another performer, Richard Rittelman, who deservedly is the focus of that article. Only the anaclase.com source approaches significant coverage (and honestly it isn't long enough to be considered in-depth as it devotes less than a paragraph of the article to her performance). Laurent Cuniot is the main subject of that article not Isshiki. There's not enough here to pass WP:NSINGER or WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is Wikipedia only for those who win first prize? - This is a performer of several unusual recordings, and performances in Paris, Brussels, Proms, ... - Aldeburgh could be added. - Deborah Sasson was kept, but achieved less in the music world. She knew how to attract the press, however. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reverting my close, and relisting for a clearer consensus, per the nom's request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the sources in the Fr article are concert listings, FNAC is an online store... I don't consider any of them RS. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. No valid rationale provided and no reasonable chance of being deleted. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS

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

This article describes a controversial exploitation film released in 1975. However, its Wikipedia article was first created and edited in June 2022, decades after the film's release, raising concerns about the timing and motivation behind its creation. The film uses the common female name "Ilsa", "Anata, associating it with violent and degrading depictions, which could lead to real-world stigmatization and bullying. Furthermore, the film holds limited cultural or historical significance, and its explicit content makes it unsuitable for an open-access platform. I propose deletion as the societal harm outweighs any academic or cultural relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaimingmingde (talk • contribs) 18:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Germany, Canada, and United States of America. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because most of the deletion rationale doesn't make sense. Toughpigs (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and no notability rationale has been provided. Simonm223 (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. It is one of the best known films for the Nazi exploitation genre, and is notable in the grindhouse theatre circles. I've no idea what the nominator means about names? Are you saying because the character is called Isla? If so, that's not a rational reason for deletion. It might not be yours or mine cup of tea, but it's a well referenced article and easily passes notability guidelines. Knitsey (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion proposal should be evaluated based on the article's content, its societal impact, and its compliance with Wikipedia's policies, not on the identity or number of proposers. The focus should remain on whether the content is appropriate for a public platform. Plus, this series of articles describes exploitation films from the 1970s with explicit pornographic content, featuring a Nazi officer as a protagonist engaging in sexual acts with prisoners. These films not only glorify sexual violence and objectify women but also risk promoting unhealthy fantasies about Nazism among immature male audiences. Such content is deeply inappropriate for a public platform like Wikipedia, which is accessible to users of all ages. The timing of the articles' more languages' creation (2022–2023) further suggests potential misuse for malicious or inappropriate purposes. Zaimingmingde (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how Wikipedia works. Articles are created based on notability (links are in my comment above) which in turn require reliable sources. This film easily passes that criteria. The article was created in 2004. If you're saying it has recently been translated into other Wikipedia articles, this is the English language Wikipedia and it has no say in what happens in other language versions. Whatever you do, don't read the article for A Seribian Film. As others have pointed out, Wikipedia does not censor most material on this site. There are dozens of films in the exploitation genre. Wikipedia doesn't censor this. Knitsey (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the most notorious exploitation films of all time. Deletion rationale feels like a case of WP:OZD. Madam Fatal (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Disruptive nomination. -Mushy Yank. 19:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: It being about something gross dosen't mean we delete it. WP:SNOW close. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indisputably a notable film and the nomination is not policy based and amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cullen328 (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Higher Menadew

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

Definitely not notable enough to be included here; only search results lead to some tourist farm cottages. In short an irrelevant place that doesn’t exactly hold any value or significance, this small farm. KrystalInfernus (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is an OS settlement[[23]] even if it is little more than a single farm but could be merged with Luxulyan, its parish. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Appears to be little more than a single farm with associated buildings. I can't see any signs to it. However, the farmhouse is a listed building, so it could be repurposed per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Some maps show it with an alternative spelling "Menadue", but I couldn't find either in current Ordnance Survey data. Royal Mail postcode search finds the farm, a barn, a cottage at the farm, and "Higher Menadue" with six other properties, and https://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/CON/Luxulyan mentions it as one of the villages in the parish; I could also find it in gazetteers but unlikely to be enough for an article. Peter James (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Linendoll

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

Non-notable speaker-for-hire. Only claim to notability is an Emmy win; but the basis for that claim is not stated (is the Emmy actually hers, or is it for some show she was part of?), nor the nature of the Emmy (local or national), assuming there is one. The Emmy claim is also unsourced; searches all lead back to the subject's own website and social media pages, or pages populated with information she has provided (e.g. her blurbs on various speaker vendors, [24], [25]). Most significantly, a search for her surname name on the Emmy search tool turns up nothing; so the claim itself is somewhat dubious.

The article was created by Brookette1, almost all of whose edits have been to this article, and who has stated that she "work[s] at the PR agency that represents" the subject. TJRC (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Television. TJRC (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Emmy was in sportcasting not primetime so would have been given by https://theemmys.tv/emmy-awards/. There are lots of these given out without media attention so does not contribute to notability. Reywas92^Talk 20:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree for above reasons and can find no independent reliable sources to support this article. Since added, article has multiple ^{[citation needed]} tags due to lack of reliable sources. Not notable. Generally does not meet WP:GNG including no significant coverage. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the subject has a media presence as an author and speaker, I cannot find any significant coverage of her in reliable sources after searching via Google and Proquest and there are no reliable sources provided in the article. Nnev66 (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roborock vacuums

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

Not every posssible list needs to be in Wikipedia. Trivial beyond belief. Fundamentally promotional. TheLongTone (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We're not a consumer guide to an entire vacuum line, and frankly, Roborock needs to be sucked up as PR itself. Nate • (chatter) 17:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note that this list was created to save the material I had removed from the Roborock article, which is in a pretty poor state even with this catalog gone. I mean,
These coverage claims are almost certainly when using the lightest suction and mop settings; on full suction/mop, customers will likely see significantly less coverage per charge and the robot will stop cleaning when its battery reaches 20% (users cannot alter the low battery level setting) to return to the dock to recharge.
Much work to be done, and that article has an odd history anyway. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTCATALOG Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly violates multiple policies as noted above. Opolito (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ajf773. Lorstaking (talk) 10:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No clear notability as a set - all references & WP:BEFORE I do only finds reviews of specific models or - at best - comparisons between products released or available at a given time, sometimes with competitors... Added to argument by nominator, strong agree on Delete, as the article content does not seem sufficiently encyclopedic to warrant a merge to Roborock. Shazback (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hall (publisher)

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

Nearly all of the listed sources seem to be connected to the subject. No indication of notability, and additional searching found nothing. Cutlass ^Ciera 16:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cutlass ^Ciera 16:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self published author, can't find any sources to back up claims of being "best selling" according to WSJ or USA today. WP:PROMO, not notable. Orange sticker (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Nilsson

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

The article only has one (unreliable) source. No indication of importance besides directing one feature film, as all the rest of the credits are small projects. Cutlass ^Ciera 16:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cutlass ^Ciera 16:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Denmark, and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added sources. A couple of ~500 words long Swedish articles with Nilsson and her work as the main focus, a couple of Danish reviews, one Danish article about her not wanting to be connected to All About Anna anymore. Perhaps not impressive but, I think, enough. As the article states, she's created two feature films (All About Anna, Sverige er fantastisk), but perhaps equally important – based on what I've found when looking for additional sources – is her work with radio plays for national Danish Radio. The focus on movies rather than radio plays seem a bit unbalanced. /Julle (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:HEY+WP:DIRECTOR+WP:GNG, so that only cleanup is now necessary, not deletion. (Thanks, Julle!) -Mushy Yank. 00:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: If available please provide any in-depth sources to bolster the case for notability. But, with the provided sources, while there are some mentions in reputable sources, they do not pass WP:SIGCOV.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

Even you are not satisfied with the coverage present on the page, she does meet WP:DIRECTOR easily. -Mushy Yank. 22:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank How? — MimsMENTOR ^talk 16:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She directed a very notable film and coverage attests of that. -Mushy Yank. 18:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 22:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above, there seems to be enough coverage to pass WP:GNG and an editor has worked on adding some to the article per WP:HEY, so more cleanup and improvement can happen, but AfD only concerns itself with the notability part, which seems satisfied. Raladic (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Baqi:) (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:DIRECTOR based on the notable feature film that is also blue-linked. --Shiv989 (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ark Engine

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

Fails WP: N. I completed a WP: BEFORE and couldn't find any sources that would establish notability. I'm also comfortable with redirecting to HarmonyOS as an WP: ATD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shakir Pichler

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

Article contains no reliable sources, has been marked as such for over 4 years. I've looked for sources but have been unable to find anything reliable or reputable, Google News, Newspapers and Books turns up nothing at all. Current text is likely original research, possibly advertising - suspicion they've been written by the person the article is about. Also question the notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfwaywrong (talk • contribs) 13:12, 12 November 2024

Delete - seems self-promotional, not even 130 results on Google Search. Not much on Google News either, bunch of social media links or brief mentions. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Starship.paint. and Halfwaywrong.

I was a bit surprised to see this page nominated for deletion out of the blue after its been online since I think 2007 or so.

There are currently About 1,570 results in google for "Shakir Pichler" in quotes and that's not including the extraneous ones if googled without quotes.

The sources are reliable - IMDB for example but I think it could do with some proper formatting perhaps.

I have edited it from time to time when others have added incorrect data as well as removing old social links like myspace from the days of old :) and this page is also linked on various other wiki pages band line-ups and feature films for example.

It's certainly not being used for 'self promotion' in any way but it is factual of someone who has made a worthy contribution to both Australian music as well as Australian and Hollywood feature films so not sure why it was targeted to be honest.

There are a bunch of other credible links I could provide when I have the time and I should edit the page to make it more up to date at some point.

Anyway, again, it's definitely not 'self promotional' just because I made sure it was factual.

I'd love some help in adding all the proper ref links (film credits) (Band credits) and things to make sure it adheres to any changing wiki regulations.

Thank you. Sexbeatrecords (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sexbeatrecords: - allow me to acquaint you with WP:RSP, where you can see that WP:IMDB is in fact generally unreliable. I suggest you find reliable sources to bolster the article. starship.paint (talk / cont) 11:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Starship.paint. Thanks. Wow, I always thought IMDB was highly ranked but good to know.

Every film credited on this wiki page is verifiable on each feature film's official imdb sub page but interesting to know it's not a reliable link even though some of the titles are big Hollywood movies.

Hopefully there are links to each film's official info separately somewhere although I have no idea where to look. The production companies involved perhaps?

WP:RSP does mention that there are exceptions to the unreliable sources. I would have thought that each film's official IMDB entry would be ok? like for one example "Jasper Jones" and then view all cast and crew to see "Shakir Pichler' listed as action vehicles coordinator. etc https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5091014/ Or still not good?

As I mentioned, I'd love to clean up the formatting of this page to adhere to Wiki's best practice. And how to add and format proper inline links...

Thanks again for your quick reply and advice. Sexbeatrecords (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sexbeatrecords: - actually the main concern here is WP:GNG. To put it in a different way, is Shakir Pichler a notable (prominent/important/distinguished) person? Wikipedia does not seek to write entries for everyone on Earth. If Shakir Pichler is notable, reliable sources will write about him. There will be journal articles, books, newspaper articles, magazine articles. It is up to you to prove that Shakir Pichler is notable by receiving reliable source coverage. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of people seem to think so!

Considering how many Australian bands he has played and recorded/released albums with, released music videos aired on shows like ABC RAGE and interviewed multiple times on radio stations like Triple J & then there is the film industry side - considering how many feature films he has been THE action vehicles coordinator of and in also appearing IN some of these films, he should absolutely have a wiki entry that documents and links with these achievements. Bit surprised this is even in contention tbh.

There are lots of newspaper articles regarding Shakir Pichler in those bands in hard copy that go back to the mid 1980's that are not available online. 157.211.92.236 (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
city of sydney library https://library.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Montage/Music.aspx?keyword=shakir+pichler&method=0&sort=1003&refinements= Sexbeatrecords (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again.

I found 2 pages that speak about Shakir Pichler in The Encyclopedia Of Australian Rock And Pop which is the Oz music Bible for want of a better word.

You are welcome to 'borrow' it for free digitally if you don't have it - the book is mentioned here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_Australian_Rock_and_Pop

You can borrow it here https://openlibrary.org/works/OL2288124W/The_encyclopedia_of_Australian_rock_and_pop

About Shakir Pichler in the kryptonics - page 352

And about Shakir Pichler in The bamboos - page 39

I will keep looking for other links when I have more time. That is a good one. Great book to have too.

Shakir Pichler also mentioned on Whammo encyclopedia in the Bamboos https://web.archive.org/web/20040427212519/http://www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=68

And also in the Kryptonics here https://web.archive.org/web/20040807052007/http://www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=997

These were two VERY important original bands from Perth who toured, released and contributed and pioneered WA's rich musical tapestry of original music nationally and internationally. Sexbeatrecords (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Australian music https://historyofaussiemusic.blogspot.com/search?q=kryptonics

Also Nick Sheppard - the guitarist from seminal UK Punk band THE CLASH even mentions Shakir Pichler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Sheppard Sexbeatrecords (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sexbeatrecords: - the whammo sources (which, I believe, are the exact same as the Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop by Ian McFarlane) do not provide WP:SIGCOV significant coverage, they just mention Pichler very briefly: Kryptonics ... Shakir Pichler (drums) / Bamboos ... In 1986, Shakir Pichler replaced Tony Chiallella on drums ... 1987 ... Russell Hopkinson (ex-Vicious Circle) had replaced Pichler on drums. Blogspot is not a reliable source. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. An admin Didier Landner very kindly added more references to the page and voted .Keep

There are also hard copy books that mention Shakir Pichler and also a few of his bands.

One is this one https://repressedrecords.com/products/george-matzkov-way-out-west-the-west-australian-pop-rock-blues-music-scene-1960-1979-book-cd which I no longer have for some reason (probably lent it and forgot) .

Also found Shakir's youtube page has a long radio interview with him live on 6UVS-FM (now RTR FM) From Perth 1986! All about the Bamboos and their massive east coast tour which was great to listen to just now! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5fNppILFGY

I have reached out to a friend who may be able to contact Shakir to see if they can get him to send any links we don't know about that would add to his credits or newspaper clippings etc if that is possible to even use if he has them. Shakir was regularly interviewed in Australian newspapers and radio stations but can't seem to find archives easily to show this.

Either way, he is an important part of Australian music history and in everyones opinion who knew his bands would absolutely agree. Yes Indie music is niche and I understand that your may not have heard of him or his bands but that only makes his contributions to Oz music more important to retain as it wasn't commercial mainstream homogenised music that everyone knows. SO wiki is a great way to learn about the WA and Australian live music scene in general.

I have been a fan of his bands since the 80's and still have all his records on vinyl to this day.

I can't vote but thats my 2c anyway :) 157.211.92.236 (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found a few more via trove. There's too many links to Shakir pichler to sift through though. This will take time.

howlin moondoggies https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20071126223011/http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/44131/20071122-0001/www.amo.org.au/artistedc4.html

The Bamboos paying with Johnny Thunders. https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20200527150202/http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/182658/20200526-1156/australianrockreview.com/2010/11/07/lifting-the-lid-on-the-rockbrat-treasure-chest-johnny-thunders-1986-sydney-gig-adverts/index9657.html

Shakir Pichler mentioned here [26]

About Shakir Pichlers legendary Rosemount Rumble https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20180318110116/http://rosemounthotel.com.au/event/rosemount-rumble-46/

Shakir photo from 1985 Kryptonics here https://www.forcedexposure.com/Artists/KRYPTONICS.html Sexbeatrecords (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still lacking WP:SIGCOV for the above links. Howlin' MoonDoggies has one (or if you are charitable, two) sentence on Pichler. Bamboos is some sort of an online comment left by Pichler. Rosemount has one sentence on Pichler. Kyptonics has one sentence on Pichler. The photo is just a photo and does not even mention Pichler. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found a digitised newspaper clipping of a big scandal that was reported in quite a few newspapers for some weeks regarding Shakir's scandalous departure from the band 'The Bamboos' mid-tour East coast tour!

From memory, this was big news in the music industry at the time and people still talk about it today. Daily News: Friday October 17th 1986 [27] is one such story. Sexbeatrecords (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic ref Shakir Pichler in the story about how the Kryptonics formed etc. [28] 157.211.92.236 (talk) 10:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delicious Design does offer some coverage on Pichler, but it is essentially this: he quit his band without telling them, and they cancelled their tour. That's all. It's not very much. Allmusic just mentions him thrice. It is not WP:SIGCOV. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sexbeatrecords (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've add references (McFarlane and Kent) to support subject's membership of two notable bands. Hence, passes Wikipedia:Notability (music)#6 per "is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles".Didier Landner (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! 157.211.92.236 (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete!

I am a high school teacher in Perth and Shakir was invited to be a special guest at our Montessori school last year to talk about life in bands and also all the films he worked on and appeared in.

To this day, a year later, the kids all say it was the best day they have had at school!

He showed parts of all the films he worked on as the action vehicles coordinator as well as the parts he also appeared in and then showed us all the music videos of the bands he has played in and then gave a drum performance and some lessons for the kids!

The students have regularly used his Wikipedia page for reference in various home-work and projects since. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.118.65.6 (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone wants to take a look at the sources added to the article since nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Vanderwaalforces: - I reviewed all the links in the article as of this version. References 1, 2, 3, 5 do not provide WP:SIGCOV. Reference 4 is an offline book but based on Google Books, the book is a Chronological listing of popular recordings ... Provides information on how many times the recording appeared in the charts and the highest position it reached. It is unlikely that it provides SIGCOV either. This link in the article provides one instance of somewhat SIGCOV but only says that Pichler quit his band unannounced in Sydney, and his band cancelled their tour. The Who's who of Australian rock book is an offline resource and I cannot confirm if there is any SIGCOV. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not forget Shakir Pichler's own project "The Howlin' MoonDoggies" who are known world-wide and released THREE full length albums released internationally, 2 music videos played on numerous commercial free to air stations In Australia ABC, Foxtel Channel V etc, Numerous Triple J (Band of the week) and uni radio station interviews with him as well, and his songs being included in FIVE international compilation albums (I have so far only found links to 3 but there are more).

OR his film career which is also extensive.

For example, he was THE action vehicles coordinator in Australian film 'Jasper Jones' where he single-handedly sourced and even drove in many scenes, all the cars from the period (1960's) the film was set in, which is a huge achievement in itself, let alone all the other feature films he worked on in the same capacity, like he did for the film "1%" for example as well.

I finally received a big thank you message via social media contact - He would like to thank everyone who has been helping source links and tidy up the wiki page. He is actually a Web Designer and said he wishes he could edit his own page (rather than the fumbling job I have done) but really does appreciate what you all have done over the years :)

Shakir Pichler is a notable identity with massive contributions in both the Music and Film industry - Is this really still up for debate? Seems a bit strange. Sexbeatrecords (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I was typing the above message I have just been sent a message finally from Shakir via reaching out on his socials.. He also just sent links to some newspaper scans etc which I have now added hopefully in the right place :) Please bear with me if the format isnt perfect and any help would be greatly appreciated so we can make this page good and hopefully put this vote to bed. Much love to the wiki volunteers. Sexbeatrecords (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Jeglic

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

Reviewed for NPP. Entirely cited to passing mentions and things written by the topic of the article. She is the co-author of two books which may or may not be notable, but I don't think that's a large enough body of work to pass WP:NAUTHOR. NACADEMIC is hard for me to understand all the subtleties of, as I don't know what a good or bad h-index is in psychology, so she might pass there but I am not sure. If she does pass NACADEMIC it needs to be far less promotional. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Women. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep, not my area. Her GS profile is [29]. This states an h-index of 52 which is, I believe, considered good in most fields. There is a healthy citation profile with three papers with >200 citations, and a further fifteen with >100 citations, none of which appear heavily co-authored. She's top of the GS topic "Sexual Violence Prevention", for whatever that's worth (it doesn't seem a commonly used tag.) The co-edited books with Springer tend to support that she is considered an expert in those areas. Agree the article needs considerable work cutting out promotion. For what it's worth the creator is enrolled in an educational programme, so it appears to be a good-faith first attempt from someone unconnected with the subject. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict How many authors count as "heavily co-authored"? All of the papers she has written appear to be coauthored. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's usually used to talk about massively co-authored papers eg in physics where everyone who ever touched the apparatus is listed (hundreds, sometimes thousands). Most modern research papers across many subjects have in the region of 5–8 authors, but this is highly subject dependent. ETA The last time I recall it being used outside the physics field was in reference to [30] which has 33 authors; in such cases it would generally only be counted if the subject were one of the first few authors, or the final one, or was indicated as the corresponding author. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Well I wish what is a sign of a pass for NACADEMIC was clearer to people who aren’t in that field, then PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Espresso Addict. The GS citation is enough to meet WP:PROF#4.Shoerack (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Road Haulage Association

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

Non-notable lobbying/representative organisation. WP:NORG and WP:SIGCOV are not met. This article was created in 2005 (by a single-purpose contributor) with short and clearly promotional text. It was expanded in 2006 (again by a single-purpose contributor) with more quasi-promotional content taken verbatim from the "about" page of the org's own website. While I've removed much of this promotional/copyvio content, I cannot find sufficient independent/reliable/verifiable sources to replace it. Or to expand this sub-stub beyond what we have. Almost all of the coverage I can find is of lobbying statements BY the association. Which includes reports like this or this or this. Being coverage of statements BY the association and not ABOUT the association. And not meeting a WP:SIRS check. In terms of coverage ABOUT the association, all I can find is stuff like this in industry outlets. Or this in local papers. None of which amounts to in-depth/significant/independent coverage. I cannot, for example, find any sources (primary or otherwise) to establish how many members the association has, or (non-primary) sources to support the text about its branches, etc. If there are insufficient independent sources to establish even basic facts (or allow for expansion beyond short text we've had for nearly 20 years) how is WP:ORGDEPTH is met? Guliolopez (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Leaning towards Keep - I would be wary/reticent to delete this article rather than expand it. Verona Murphy was President of IRHA for a significant amount of time, and holding that position helped launch her political career. When Murphy became a TD, that expanded the media's coverage of the IRHA and the role became considered a bit more notable, similar to how a trade union might become highlighted if someone associated with them gained political office.

You've raised the concern that

Almost all of the coverage I can find is of lobbying statements BY the association

however I don't know that this is anything other than what we would expect. Secondary, reliable sources such as national newspapers would only ever cover an organisation such as this when it is making statements of that nature. The same would go for a trade union or farmer's representative body. I would lean towards those reports, by very reliable sources such as the Irish Times and RTÉ News, as examples of SIGCOV. We wouldn't expect national news sources to do a simple puff piece profile of any organisation where they simply inform us of their purpose and membership number. I think reliable sources covering small trade unions, for example, would not anyways dwell on their membership numbers, but nonetheless those unions would hold some significant.

Another concern raised is that the article was likely promotional in origin, and has not been edited regularly. While both of these are unfortunate, the article starting as promotion but then being fixed is not anymore automatically disqualifying than if Coca Cola's article had first been created by someone doing promotional style writing. While's is bad practice, ultimately Coca Cola would be notable and kept as an article regards of how the article originally started. As far as the lack of regular editing goes; one can reasonably argue and point out that this is typical of less prominent Irish articles. With Ireland's small population, and small body of regular Wiki editors, it is not always the case that lack of editing reflects lack of notability.

I just want to note at this point I'm playing Devil Advocate here rather than having any significant personal interest in the article. I would be interested in seeing the perspectives of other editors on this matter. CeltBrowne (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With thanks for your input (and likely coming as no surprise) I can't personally agree. That Verona Murphy was previously president of the organisation, to my mind, falls under WP:NOTINHERITED (that the organisation had a notable president doesn't make the organisation notable). That newspapers only really cover statements by the organisation (rather than the organisation itself) is exactly the type of concern covered in WP:SIRS and WP:ORGDEPTH (that the article cannot be expanded, because there are no independent/reliable sources to do so, is a core tenet of the guideline). Also, and with apologies if it wasn't clear in my nomination, that the original article was promotional (or that it was created by a possibly COI/SPA contributor) wasn't offered as part of my deletion rationale. Just as background. (I have personally "rescued" more than a few promotional (but otherwise notable) org articles as part of WP:BEFORE and AfD efforts. I do not see how that can be done here however. As there is nothing to rely upon to "rescue" this permastub. If you're aware of reliable/independent sources that can help expand it, then please do add them.) Guliolopez (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - well, a weak delete. There's lots of stuff out there on this industry group in a WP:BEFORE search. I didn't see anything which was a crystal clear WP:NORG pass, and it's likely our strictest guideline, so I can't vote for a keep. However, if someone wants to improve this - currently it's a stub with only one source that isn't the org's website - and can find NCORP sources, I have no problem if this is HEYed or re-written. SportingFlyer T·C 06:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Masked Singer Malaysia (season 3)

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

Contested redirect. The article is technically too old to be draftified. A WP:BEFORE search failed. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Malaysia. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. But if it somehow survives, can the closer please tag the talk page with appropriate wikiprojects please. - X201 (talk) 08:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arab speculative fiction

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

None of the sources used here discuss "Arab speculative fiction" as a grouping, only similar but not the same topic. If sources do exist on the topic nothing here is built around them so it is entirely OR at present. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Middle East. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction has an entry for "Arabic SF". TompaDompa (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And there's e.g. Ian Campbell's Arabic Science Fiction (2019). The topic, in itself, is certainly notable. /Julle (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa @Julle But as is, every single word in the article is cited to sources not about the article topic - entirely OR. At that point it is WP:TNT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the purposes of notability, are science and speculative fiction equivalent? I know they're intertwined but I am uncertain. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good point. Speculative fiction is, as commonly understood, broader. Science fiction is a part of speculative fiction. That is, I'd argue an article about Arabic science fiction is relevant for an an article on Arabic speculative fiction, but it's not entirely the same. In a situation where all reliable sources would talk about Arabic science fiction, it'd be far better to move it to Arabic science fiction. /Julle (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above sources, but will be adding the appropriate CTOP notice to the talk page. Jclemens (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens As is, nothing in the article is salvageable. So unless someone wants to rewrite it and change the scope this is a TNT case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TNT doesn't apply, and I wish people would actually read the essay before quoting it. Jclemens (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - there is nothing salvageable for a topic that is notable under the current article. To comply with policy from what is here it would have to be reduced to a sentence: Arabic science fiction is science fiction written in Arabic (or related to Arabic culture, or something). There is nothing encyclopedic about a one sentence definition. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erez Da Drezner

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

I don't find any encyclopedic importance for this article, which telling about an anonymous deaf Israel person which haven't any significant things. He even haven't an article in the Hebrew Wikipedia. זור987 (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added standard information for an AfD nomination at the top TSventon (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article meets the WP:NMODEL #1 and #2 criteria. The article describes visits of Da Drezner in two different hospitals in Ukraine, and describes his other deeds.

The article also was written in February 5, 2021 and has not been nominated for deletion until today. --DgwTalk 15:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles can be nominated for deletion at any point that they are live on the main space. We see articles created in 2005 that are brought to AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm on the fence a bit about this as the references are stocked full of non-reliable sources like Youtube and random blogspot domains. With that being said there's the kernel of a possibility that Da Dresner's work in Ukraine might reach the minimum bar for notability... except for WP:BLP1E. If his notability could be shown to extend to his TV work, other advocacy work or really anything other than one trip to Ukraine I might be persuaded. However the sources presently available in the article do not do this and I did not find anything really missing on a google search. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sixth place on a TV show and some charitable works after, but I don't really see notability. Sourcing is scant, i can only pull up articles about the trip to Ukraine. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big Brother (Israeli TV series) season 2#Housemates as an ATD, and a WP:TROUT for trying to argue non-notability in another project simply because an article for the subject hasn't been created on he.wiki. Also calling someone 'an anonymous...deaf person' is cruel and should never be a part of a rationale. Nate • (chatter) 20:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As things are going in ANI, there are enough evidences that this AfD has not been done in a good faith. I suggest to hold the Afd until archiving the discussion in ANI. If the article has to be deleted, please move it to User:Dorian Gray Wild/Erez Da Drezner until there is an additional activity of Da Drezner. DgwTalk 07:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you changing your !vote to draftifying the article? You understand that would mean deleting the article after the draft is taken? Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not change my vote. The user who made this AfD has been one-way banned from any articles which I edited. If in the end of this discussion, the admin will decide to delete this article, calculating my "keep" vote and the one-way-ban which the user got, I ask the admin to move the article to my user space instead of deleting it. DgwTalk 16:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, my misunderstanding. However it wouldn't be nrormal to cancel an in-progress AfD just because the filer is under an i-ban put in place after filing. Three people who are not the filer have already provided feedback that should be considered without prejudice. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Costa Rica, London

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources present do not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, and Costa Rica. AusLondonder (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge somewhere appropriate. Not seeing any urgent need to delete this? The sources seem adequate to support the content provided. If the intention is to question the encyclopedia's coverage of all the many missions/embassies, it would seem sensible to start an RfC to discuss how best to cover this topic, rather than picking individual articles off one by one by prod or AfDs that are unlikely to be well attended. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re it would seem sensible to start an RfC to discuss how best to cover this topic, rather than picking individual articles off one by one by prod or AfDs that are unlikely to be well attended Over the past few months there have been a succession of individual PRODs and AfDs of articles about embassies and consulates in London, not a single one has ended in delete (most have been redirected to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London, a target that is on my list to improve), a couple have been kept and some merged or redirected to other targets. Despite the very clear consensus that deletion is not desired by the community they have continued to nominate at PROD and AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did eventually find that useful list; could a column for extra information be added there? It seems to me to be useful and interesting that the Costa Rican embassy converted relatively recently from a "mission", which is supported by a reliable Times source. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a column for that is on my list. Leave a note on the talk page with ideas for improvement so I remember them when I get to it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the intention is to question the encyclopedia's coverage of all the many missions/embassies, it would seem sensible to start an RfC to discuss how best to cover this topic, rather than picking individual articles off one by one by prod or AfDs that are unlikely to be well attended There have been many, many AfDs for diplomatic missions over several years and very few have been kept. AfD is clearly the appropriate place for each individual diplomatic mission to be assessed on notability. Not sure what's controversial here. AusLondonder (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Over the past few months there have been a succession of individual PRODs and AfDs of articles about embassies and consulates in London There have been many AfDs over several years for individual diplomatic missions globally, not just "in London". You may only be interested in missions in London but that's simply a mischaracterisation. You are also inaccurate in suggesting none have been deleted. Despite the very clear consensus that deletion is not desired by the community they have continued to nominate at PROD and AfD AfD is an appropriate venue to decide a potential merge/redirect. AusLondonder (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is fine, prod not so much, imo. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes some embassy articles have been deleted. So it is false to say very clear consensus that deletion is not desired by the community. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources 3-10 confirm former ambassadors and are not about the embassy itself. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LibStar Genuine question, where exactly in WP:ORG do you consider this falls? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only sources 1 and 2 are about the actual embassy. Source 1 is a database list. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was that intended to be in response to my question? Not seeing how it answers it. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." The sources do not meet that. There will be no further response. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict: I'm not sure what your question is. Are you suggesting WP:NORG doesn't apply? AusLondonder (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was attempting to clarify exactly which part of ORG was held to apply -- eg the standards for companies are entirely different from those for non-profits, but there's no specific guidance for embassies. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. If the embassy does not have stand-alone notability then the encyclopaedic content should be merged somewhere. Straight deletion will not benefit the project. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three Days (Jane's Addiction song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG, virtually no significant coverage of the song in WP:RSMUSIC sources. Before I removed them, most of the sources were WP:USERG fansites and forums (additionally, I am unsure if the one source that remains qualifies as reliable, looks very dubious). A Google search turns up WP:REDDIT, WP:GENIUS, and other user-generated and self-published sources. No chart positions, no certifications, no evidence that it meets the criteria of WP:NSONG. Redirect to Ritual de lo Habitual. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ritual de lo Habitual. I am familiar with this song and album. It is a favorite among fans and is occasionally mentioned in listcicles of great guitar solos or best alternative rock songs, but it does not have enough precise and dedicated coverage to merit a stand-alone article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. No attempt to meet notability guidelines, and even if it did, there's no need for a separate article to house 2 basic sentences about the song. It'll fit just fine in the relatively small-to-normal sized album article. Sergecross73 msg me 17:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chantal Fernandez

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

The book she was the co-author of appears to be close to being notable, but given it's only one she does not quite pass NAUTHOR as there aren't any independent sources on her. If someone wants to flip the article around to being on the book (provided there are more sources for that) then that might be an option but I'm not sure there are. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Literature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Fashion, United States of America, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Brown (American football)

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

This is a partial hoax. It looks like there was a Keith Brown who played college football at Rhode Island but he never signed with an NFL team. He just had a tryout in 2006. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, American football, and Rhode Island. – The Grid (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything to support a article here. Fails WP:GNG and appears to be a likely hoax. Let'srun (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Working load limit

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

Wikipedia is not a guide and not a dictionary. While this term is clearly popular on Wikipedia evidenced by pageviews, I was unable to find two sources to establish WP:GNG.

Sources I could find:

[31] - anonymous author and appearance of a blog.
[32] - blog.
[33] - blog.
[34] - potentially reliable for supporting factual claims but is not clearly a reliable source for establishing notability.
The listed citation in the article refers to [35] which appears a primary source (although I do not have access to a copy). Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lifting equipment, which is already a very short article that could use substance of this type. BD2412 T 15:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 10:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jhala Ajja

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

This article was recreated under a different name shortly after being deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajja Jhala. The creator has used a different set of sources that still do not show evidence of notability. The page creator has wisely foregone the fantastical non-independent sources discussed in the previous AfD, but we still get nowhere close to WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:GNG. A brief analysis:

A series of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS: History of Mewar has a single mention on page 174. Jhala Zalim Singh has a single name check on page 20. Mewar and the Mughal Emperors has a single paragraph mentioning Ajja. Maharana Sanga The Hindupat gives another single mention to Jhala Ajja.
A series of colonial-era British sources (also trivial mentions) of questionable reliability per WP:RAJ: History of the Dhrangadhra State (1921) has two trivial mentions on page 69; Rajputana Gazetteer has single trivial mention on p. 128; The Mewar Residency, volume 2 (1908) offers a single reference.
The WP:SELFPUBLISHED Medieval History of Rajasthan, which, even if reliable, gives a single mention to Ajja.

Bottom line: this appears to be an effort using WP:SYNTH to fabricate notability out of a series of passing mentions, many in sources of questionable reliablity. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, Gujarat, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)impo[reply]
Delete. As I said in the previous discussion, the authors are of course interested in propping up their fanaticized family history. WP is not the place for this kind of promo. Also, this likely runs afoul of G4 at WP:CSD. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Greens vs. Blacks I tried; an admin declined the G4. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Might not pass GNG but passes the subject-specific notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN as a ruler of a state. 70.95.40.63 (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is a hereditary prince of a subnational region a politician under WP:NPOL? Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL says that politician holding national or state/province wide office is presumed to be notable and being a hereditary ruler of a state is a state/province-wide political office. Wikipedia:Notability says that the article topic has to meet either GNG OR subject-specific notability guideline including WP:NPOL and it does not have to meet both. 70.95.40.63 (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King and ruler are automatically notable on Wikipedia per WP:NPOL. 2001:EE0:1B23:B2C5:355B:3504:AFE0:49EB (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC) — 2001:EE0:1B23:B2C5:355B:3504:AFE0:49EB (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
NPOL says nothing about hereditary royalty. It covers politicians and judges. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article topic is a ruler. All rulers are politicians by definition. They wield political powers and make policies for the lands and subjects under their rule. 70.95.40.63 (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note: This article has been tagged for G4 deletion twice, and for both times, 2 different admins (Nyttend and I) have reviewed the content here and the deleted article: they are 100% different. As such, please do not tag CSD G4 again. Thank you. – robertsky (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the IP. We don't delete monarchs on notability grounds, as they're at least as notable as non-monarchial figures at similar levels. Even if he were subject to a higher monarch, he would have been at a level comparable to the chief minister of a small state in the current Republic of India, and the fact that he inherited his role is irrelevant. Also, the cited WP:RAJ discusses caste issues; this is unrelated to caste, and citing a userspace essay is unhelpful. Don't impose a userspace essay's point of view on everyone. Nyttend (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to the policy to your point that "We don't delete monarch on notability grounds..." I haven't read a policy stating that. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely separate from the reliability of the sources, none of them constitutes WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jhala Ajja is a notable person. Article shouldn't be deleted. Lordo'Web (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage in sources. The article in question doesn't meet notability in WP:GNG, rendering it eligible for deletion under WP:SYNTH. Additionaly, the article's cursory examination of the subject fails to provide the requisite depth and analysis stipulated by WP:INDEPTH, thus necessitating its removal. MSLQr (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass GNG according to the concept of WP:Junk delete. He is not a notable person references show overview of only one event WP:ONEEVENT so he's a fictionary character in history:: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parul Sindhwan (talk • contribs) 07:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the nominator's explanations it should be deleted per SYNTH sources of RSSELF & lacking in depth-covrage DEPTH. Interestingly it is related to the series of articles directly related to Jhala dynasty. ®asteem Talk 20:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't see a consensus here yet. But would editors arguing for a Keep, please point out which sources establish GNG or provide SIGCOV?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Cited refs fail to constitute WP:SIGCOV, focused on the Jhala clan, but barely mention Jhala Ajja's leadership in any depth. Despite examining the Refs of Dr. R.P. Shastri, G Sharma, and Ram Vallabh Somani, insufficient information exists to establish Ajja Jhala's notability, contravening Wikipedia's GNG Guideline. Useroppa (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC) — Useroppa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 12:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not quite finding the level of decent sourcing we'd expect... Some mentions of the individual, but I don't think we have enough. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. DrKay (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BreakThrough News

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

BreakThrough News is not sufficiently notable to merit its own page. Most WP:RS which non-trivially discuss BTN explain that it is an appendage of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, to which this page previously redirected. I support reverting the page to a mere redirect. SocDoneLeft (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging users: @إيان: @Superb Owl:. SocDoneLeft (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Internet, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with redirect to Party for Socialism and Liberation#BreakThrough News, per nomination. There's a bit more information here than there about Singham and some recent events connected with the site. Wikishovel (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's notable; it has about 897K subscribers on Youtube, 500k on TikTok, 250k followers on Instagram, and 160k on Twitter/X, and its coverage has been embedded in articles on legacy media such as The Independent.

The main problem with redirecting to Party for Socialism and Liberation is that it's the POV of the The Daily Beast and The Jerusalem Post, two sources most editors consider biased or opinionated.

إيان (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested above. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Echoing يان's concerns, the subject obviously meets notability criteria. And with respect to votes to redirect: it's clear that redirecting to PSL would be a violation of NPOV from the outset (even before considering the sourcing, as explained by إيان).

On that point: if BTN doesn't disclose its funding sources (as seems to be the primary issue), then that should be explained in this article, using a variety of sources.

I can think of several reasons Wikipedia users deserve to be able to search for and find an article on BTN (this article) independent of information about PSL. For example, any discussion of putative links between PSL and BTN seem most appropriately discussed in the BTN article; depending on the nature of the particular link, it's possible that such a discussion would be considered irrelevant in the PSL article (and therefore not persisted).

Separately, but related: it is true that this article needs more content and more sources; but also, the related articles suffer from several deficits that likely make it more difficult for just anyone to come along and improve its content (i.e., by seeking related information in sources used in related articles). Daily Beast and JPost aside, it appears that the article about Neville Roy Singham is affected by a mixture of sourcing that includes dubious sources like New Lines Magazine, published by a think tank hosted by an essentially illusory university (FXUA, with fewer than 50 students) whose president is also the founder and president of that think tank.

In short: there appears to be an opinion-laundering war going on, and editors need to be able to keep these articles distinct in order to avoid hijacking attempts by any of the groups that might be involved.

--ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 21:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see no reason why this article should be kept at this time, it lacks enough information to meet notability per WP:GNG The article only contain information about the founders, what next? What's the significance? The creator should perhaps fill up these gaps to keep the article. I can't find none myself, There is also limited WP:RS. Tesleemah (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear that WP:GNG is satisfied by citations of BTN's reporting in The Guardian, Fortune, and Al Jazeera, among others. --ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 20:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I checked the social media handles, website, and sources of this news company, but I didn't find anything notable. Baqi:) (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not see any significant coverage. Mentions in publications would not be sufficient. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to WP:SPAM. Bearian (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What part of that policy do you think applies to this article? إيان (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added mentions in The Guardian, The Independent, and Al Jazeera. إيان (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And discussion in the following book published by Routledge:
Bergman, Tabe; Hearns-Branaman, Jesse Owen, eds. (2024). Media, dissidence and the War in Ukraine. Routledge studies in media, communication and politics. London New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-032-55705-2.
إيان (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking in WP:SIGCOV, a merge might be acceptable too, but I do not know where to. Andre🚐 20:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear that WP:SIGCOV is satisfied by the two articles in The Daily Beast, as well as the book Media, Dissidence and the War in Ukraine. --ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 20:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added yet another citation in Fortune, in addition to the previously mentioned discussion in the book Media, dissidence and the War in Ukraine, the articles specifically about it in The Daily Beast and Jerusalem Post, and citations in major publications such as The Guardian, The Independent, Al Jazeera, etc. Those ǃvoting to delete citing WP:SPAM or WP:SIGCOV have not offered any explanation why they think these apply in light of this substantial coverage. إيان (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TNT delete. The additional sources of Fortune and Al Jazeera do not actually provide any WP:SIGCOV of this group; they merely include an embedded tweet. Likewise, The Independent does not provide WP:SIGCOV. I have read the chapter of Media, Dissidence and the War in Ukraine, and the references to Breakthrough News appear to be passing mentions; it does not provide WP:SIGCOV of this group.
As for The Daily Beast, one of the two sources is an opinion piece, which is not reliable nor suitable for establishing notability. The second piece clearly is WP:SIGCOV, but the JPost mention is a paragraph of independent coverage. What pushes this over the line for me to think that this might be notable is this Network Contagion Research Institute report, which does cover the group in some depth. But the article currently is extremely whitewashed compared to the reliable sourcing, and it's softly promotional in its current tone. Rather than keeping it, I do think that blowing it up and starting from scratch would create a better article on this group. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we have established that WP:SIGCOV is not an issue and that the topic indeed meets standards of notability. Why don't we simply improve the article? I can start integrating views in the Network Contagion Research Institute source. Could you identify the elements that you lead you to write that the article as it stands is extremely whitewashed compared to the reliable sourcing, and it's softly promotional in its current tone? إيان (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is still an active discussion going on here. We have arguments to Keep, Delete and Redirect although the discussion is leaning Delete or No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:ORGCRIT per the source analysis by Red-tailed hawk. However, I find the suggestion that it would be too difficult to edit the work and therefore we should WP:TNT ridiculous. The article is currently less than 1500 characters, making it technically WP:STUB length. How hard is re-working such a tiny article? We can totally fix it without much effort.4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 12:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Daily Beast is a marginal RS [36]. I don't think we have enough RS to keep at this time. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any opinion on Red-tailed hawk's source analysis above? إيان (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reema Debnath

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. She has not played a leading role in any film either. There's no significant coverage about her in the sources and in WP:BRFORE search. Google news also shows 0 coverage about this individual. Nxcrypto Message 12:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, Women, and Actors and filmmakers. In2020 (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One supporting role in major(ish) film isn't enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR.

~~P.S. What is WP:BRFORE? I'm new in AfD, I mostly took part in counterpart project in Polish Wikipedia.~~ OK, I think you meant WP:BEFORE :) Tupungato (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. Charlie (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tripura-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources on the page. Source 1 is from Mumbai mirror about her wrongful death news and matrimonial dispute. Source 2 is from Shillong Times is ok but this news media is not recognized nationally. Source 3 has nothing on the subject. Source 4 is repeat of Source 2. Source 5 in bengali language talks about very short role played by the subject in film PK. I do not find the actor passing WP:NACTOR. RangersRus (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject is discussed in detail in the Mumbai Mirror article, but none of the other references provide significant information. Therefore, I agree with the nominator's assessment. Baqi:) (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayur Chauhan

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

Subject was twice declined in AfC and also fails NACTOR, as the subject has not had significant roles in notable films or shows. There is no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources apart from the WP:OR added by User:Saurang Vara who denies any COI despite being familiar with the subject's personal information. The subject's role in Chhello Divas does not appear to be significant and none of the other films have substantial content to be considered when evaluating Mayur Chauhan according to NACTOR. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, India, and Gujarat. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say his 3 roles in productions that have a page on this WP are not significant? And why should Karsandas Pay & Use be considered non-notable? I found some coverage about Saiyar Mori Re too. He seems to meet WP:NACTOR, -Mushy Yank. 13:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioned films do not meet WP:NFOE/ WP:NFILM. Karsandas Pay & Use has two reviews, one from TOI with an unknown critic and another from an unknown website. Saiyar Mori Re has no reception section and Samandar (film) has two local reviews! From a WP:BEFORE search, none of these films have been distributed outside Gujarat. Just because these films have articles on Wikipedia does not mean they are notable in the first place to be used as evaluation criteria for Mayur Chauhan. Either way, there is zero coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a critic writes for a national publication such as Times of India he is considered nationally known as per discussions at WP:NFILM Atlantic306 (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discusisons on What is a "nationally-known critic"? and "Nationally-known critic" as it relates to films of India aren't closed and there is no consensus either. Let me know if I have missed any archived discussions. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The subject has relatively moderate significant coverage for his films Saiyar Mori Re, Samandar (film), and Karsandas Pay and Use. As the lead actor in all these projects, the combined coverage is sufficient to pass WP:ACTOR.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the coverage though? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khairul Basar

AfDs for this article:

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

Article clearly fails WP:NACTOR. It was deleted last time too but was recreated without establishing any evidence of notability. Nxcrypto Message 09:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The three sources in the article do not pass notability guidelines as two of which are interviews and the remaining one is a news version of the interview from Daily Star. Though that may count as WP:SIGCOV, it is not enough to pass notability. Google search did not provide further prove of notability. This subject therefore failed WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first deletion was 3 years ago. Sources that were published after that date include: https://www.thedailystar.net/entertainment/tv-film/news/12-shades-khairul-basar-eid-3011136 ; https://bangladeshpost.net/posts/keya-khairul-team-up-for-the-first-time-in-porichoy-127326 ; https://www.daily-sun.com/printversion/details/683171/Dighi-Khairul-Basar-in-web-film-‘Murder-90’mand a lot of Daily Star coverage and interviews. -Mushy Yank. 13:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability and promotional.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terence O'Reilly

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

The article does not demonstrate a notable character. And the editor User:LINCOLN2024 who moved it to the main space has been blocked for WP:SOCK, where he has a string of articles moved to the main space without being checked. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Ireland, England, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Personally recommend restoring to draft - reverting the unilateral action of the socking editor. And that the draft be progressed through WP:AFC before any decision is made on moving it back to the main/article namespace. I recommend this as, after a quick WP:BEFORE, there appears to be some coverage of the subject as a topic in his own right (Granted mostly obituary-style journal articles and the type of coverage we typically see for academics, but someone with more familiar with WP:NACADEMIC would ideally take a look.) Guliolopez (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Membership of the Irish Academy would tend to pass WP:NPROF C3, and having an obituary written in an academic journal [37] tends to suggest NPROF C1. OTOH, before the work of Guliolopez, this would have been a speedy G4. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... and the article is now a pretty clear Keep, per WP:HEY. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Due to the existence and content of the obits in Bulletin of Spanish Studies and Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review indicating notability: (Msrasnw (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. Along with the pass of WP:PROF#C3 through the Royal Irish Academy, and the now three published academic obituaries/remembrances used as references, we have enough reviews of his books for a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Royal Irish Academy membership meeting WP:PROF, book reviews of multiple books meeting WP:AUTHOR, and multiple obituaries meeting GNG. Article appears to have been cleaned up and, as it was not created by the blocked user, would not fall under G5. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:ACADEMIC#3 and WP:AUTHOR are clearly met here. Shoerack (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the rest. Well sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shashi Ranjan (actor)

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

Delete – My WP:BEFORE turned up no substantive independent secondary sources – there are plenty of listings etc. - to support the subject's notability with respect to WP:NACTOR. His 250+ episodes in Tere Mere Sapne (TV series) plus other roles here and there do not, I suggest, constitute "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Moreover, the article has been largely unreferenced since its creation, with only an IMDb reference appearing here and there. (N.B. it seems that there are a number of actors called Shashi Ranjan, at least according to IMDb – I think, but am not sure, that these two may both refer to this article https://www.imdb.com/name/nm11523032/ https://www.imdb.com/name/nm9556952/ and this one is a different person https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1662213/). As an alternative, maybe merge and redirect to Tere Mere Sapne (TV series)? SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an unsourced WP:BLP that should have been deleted via PROD. Google search brought some hits on the name of the actor but I believe those articles are not about the subject of this article because they do not appear to discuss things related to this article. If the article had complete date of birth that would have helped to discern who those press articles talk about. The activities of thoss discussed in those articles date far back before this very actor started their career. Mekomo (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Theatre, Bihar, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete via G5‎. UtherSRG (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaman Devgan

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

No WP:SIGCOV sources have been found. The available sources are passing mentions related to the new Azaad film and Ajay Devgn. As the Azaad film has not been released yet, WP:NACTOR is not met, and WP:GNG is also not met. GrabUp - Talk 07:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 08:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is WP:TOOSOON. The actor is just warming up for his debut film and he is only referenced as a nephew to a purported movie star. Mekomo (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Azaad (2025 film)

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

No significant coverage (SIGCOV) has been found. The film is set to be released next year, so there are no reviews available, failing to meet the criteria of WP:NFILM. GrabUp - Talk 07:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Film. GrabUp - Talk 07:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)\[reply]
Comment: If reviews were the chief criteria for having a film article, all upcoming films listed at List of American films of 2025 should also be nominated for deletion. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Krimuk2.0: That’s one of the important criteria currently being used in AfDs related to films, which is why I mentioned it. However, the film still does not pass GNG. GrabUp - Talk 08:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Abhishek Kapoor: until more independent coverage exists (and then revert the redirect and expand) but not opposed to Keep (release announced in January; notable cast and crew, known premise) if other users think it's OK. -Mushy Yank. 10:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:NFF and WP:DRAFTREASON #3. Brief coverage of the film's upcoming release is not enough to warrant an article now, but it is reasonable to expect more coverage upon its release. Redirecting is also okay but not my preferred choice, as there are multiple reasonable targets. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I am okay with draftification. The film is said to be releasing in January, nearly one or two months, and I also expect multiple reviews upon its release. GrabUp - Talk 04:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. HCLT (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: WP:TOOSOON and WP:NFF. Tag the draft with the appropriate draft/movie/not yet, too, please. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 deleted‎ as a blatant hoax by Rsjaffe. (non-admin closure) JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 03:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rmr. Ragulvarma

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

I couldn't find any information about this individual through Google searches, which makes me inclined towards this being a hoax. None of the references cited in the article appear to mention the person, and the content seems to be copied from the article on R. S. Munirathinam. Since the article was accepted via AfC, initiating a deletion discussion might be the most appropriate action. Hitro talk 07:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Tamil Nadu. Hitro talk 07:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google search for this 'politician' amounted to a waste of time as there are no hints about them in search result. This article at best is a hoax. And if it is not a hoax it also has to go because it is unsourced and cannot be verified. Mekomo (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is unsourced because an IP user removed content some time ago. You can review the edit history to find the sources that were previously included. Hitro talk 11:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might this be a hijack, rather than hoax? The version which was accepted at AfC said this person won elections in the 1970-80s, whereas the current version says he was only born in 1999. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Electoral Performance" section appears to be directly copied from the article R. S. Munirathinam, including its references. None of the references in this version mentions him either. They have just created Draft:P RAGULVARMA. Hitro talk 12:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one of a series of hoax articles by SP/MP, based on K. Venu (Tamil Nadu politician).

See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/RAGULVARMA PRABHU/Archive, Draft:RAGULVARMA PRABHU, DEEPA RAGULVARMA, Draft:DEEPA RAGULVARMA, PMK RAGULVARMA, Draft:RAGULVARMA PMK, User:RMR2004/sandbox and Draft:RAGULVARMA RMR. Falls well within CSD criteria of A7, G3 and A10, or G5 if anyone fancies reopening the SPI. Wikishovel (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A complete mess aside from the issues mentioned above. Procyon117 (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I decided to do some digging and found this, which appears to be the election results from the 2021 Gummidipoondi legislative election, and there was no candidate with the name "Rmr. Ragulvarma." This contemporary source appears to corroborate that. This is a hoax. JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 16:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Iam the grandson I claim my grandfather so please remove the An editor has nominated this article for deletion 2409:40F4:3047:8247:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete just another hoax from this user. KylieTastic (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. RangersRus (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Couldn't find relevant source on google to keep thisChikwendummesonma (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mads Hamberg Andersen

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Not even coverage in databases that could point to how he would be notable. Geschichte (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson (soccer)

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

Similar case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lecomte (archer). Placements at the early Olympics depended on circumstance, it was not the serious global competition we see today. Specifically, soccer at the 1904 Olympics took place between three random clubs. When not even his name is known, the fact that he won a medal matters little. At best, redirect to either football or the US at the 1904 Summer Olympics. Geschichte (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to e.g. Football at the 1904 Summer Olympics#Medalists or List of 1904 Summer Olympics medal winners#Football. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of 1904 Summer Olympics medal winners#Football: Fails WP:GNG. Demt1298 (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the previous two users. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. If by some staggering chance it is kept, the title needs changing as it could refer to any one of probably dozens of professionals past and present -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – There isn't even enough information to support the article itself, listing for the 1904 Summer Olympics squads is more than enough. Svartner (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheema Y

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

Likely to fail WP:NMUSIC KH-1 (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

any reasons to delete it ?

i can show you wikipedia pages that have no reference at all that people are not even famous.

but rightnow in north india this singer trending on number one.

give reasons to delete it mr.editor.

thanks. 2001:56B:3FFA:2FFE:C955:65B4:E1FE:305F (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please list any pages that don't have sourcing or unfamous people, that's also meaning they should at least be tagged for notability, perhaps deleted. Thank you for your help. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That response comes across as quite immature. Are you really suggesting using other articles as justification for keeping this one? That’s not how we determine whether an article should be deleted. This is Wikipedia, and popularity alone doesn’t equal notability. I suggest familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's notability guidelines before making such arguments. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 08:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Punjab and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

This musical artist is very popular in India. I have noticed a general trend over both wikipedia and wikidata, that artists who are popular in countries outside of the USA are often deleted due to not meeting "notability criteria" despite them often being in the top 10 of popular artists in their own country, especially for artists from India or Africa.

There are lots of articles on the internet showing his popularity from independent well respected sources e.g.

Please consider keeping this entry. Thank you. QWER9875 (talk) 10:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is dominated with references to music chat websites which I do not know their reliability status. Only three sources in the article are not music chat websites. This one here[38] is the only source that could count for notability but this unfortunately is not enough. The other two left, one is interview and the other advertorial. Mekomo (talk) 11:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Smells of promotion with the flowery language. I'm not sure he's gained much attention as there isn't much of anything in RS. He's briefly mentioned here [39], I can only find Times of India articles that are problematic for the usual reasons. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023 mid-south U.S. floods

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

Nominating yet another one of my articles for deletion for the same reasons: it fails WP:NSUSTAINED too. Most of the coverage for this event is only when the flooding took place, and that's about it. There's this article regarding the aftermath, but other than that, there's nothing else to be found. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge to Floods in the United States (2000–present), but given that this event kinda occurred in a localized area, I'm unsure if that's a good alternative for deletion in this case. Either way, this fails WP:NEVENT on the basis of sustained coverage, which this article doesn't really have. ~ Tails Wx 04:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee. ~ Tails Wx 04:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Floods in the United States (2000-present), which seems to be an appropriate place to mention this (and again, shocked it’s not already there.) However, unlike July 2023 Western Kentucky floods, there might not be enough to put in there, thus I’m not opposed to outright deletion. 74.101.118.218 (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Floods in the United States (2000-present). Agreed that this fails WP:NSUSTAINED as a standalone article, but the list article allows for shorter descriptions of the rainfall records and disaster response details contained here. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 20:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social utility efficiency

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Social utility efficiency

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

The definition of SUE as appearing in this article appears to be only discussed by Samuel Merrill and no other authors (excepting SPS and other unreliable sources) in the past several decades. I do not think this meets the notability bar. Affinepplan (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Mathematics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly meets notability guidelines. Has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject:
- Weber 1978 "Comparison of Public Choice Systems"
  - Origin of the metric under the name "effectiveness", has 22 citations
- "A comparison of efficiency of multicandidate electoral systems" by S Merrill III, American Journal of Political Science, 1984. JSTOR
  - Origin of the SUE name, in a peer-reviewed journal, has 153 citations
- Postl, Peter and Giles, Adam, Equilibrium and Welfare of Two-Parameter Scoring Rules (August 1, 2012). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2124477 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2124477
  - "Computational results regarding the effectiveness of different scoring rules (where effectiveness is captured by a modification of the effectiveness measure proposed in Weber, 1978"
- Evaluating and Comparing Voting Rules behind the Veil of Ignorance. Postl, Peter. L'Actualité Économique. Vol. 93, Iss. 1/2, (Mar-Jun 2017): 1-32,1A-36A.
  - "Computational results regarding the effectiveness of different scoring rules (… a modification of the effectiveness measure proposed in Weber, 1978)"
  - "According to Weber (1978), efficiency is defined, broadly speaking, as the ratio between the expected utilitarian welfare generated by the actually elected candidate according to the scoring rule and the expected utilitarian welfare generated by the socially optimal candidate." ["D’après Weber (1978), l’efficacité est définie, en gros, comme le rapport entre l’espérance de bien-être utilitariste générée par le candidat vraiment élu en fonction de la règle de score et l’espérance de bien-être utilitariste générée par le candidat optimal du point de vue social."]
- Le Breton, M., Lepelley, D., Macé, A. & Merlin, V. (2017). Le mécanisme optimal de vote au sein du conseil des représentants d’un système fédéral. L'Actualité économique, 93(1-2), 203–248. https://doi.org/10.7202/1044720ar
  - "This coefficient corresponds to what Weber (1978, 1995) defines as the effectiveness of voting mechanism C." ["Ce coefficient correspond à ce que Weber (1978, 1995) définit comme étant l’effectivité du mécanisme de vote C."]
- Le Breton, M., Blais, A. & Dellis, A. (2017). Élections : comportements, mécanismes et réformes. L'Actualité économique, 93(1-2), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.7202/1044713ar
  - "It follows in the line of Weber's pioneering work (1978), which, unfortunately, has been forgotten for too long. … The evaluation of the electoral system is then based on the expected value of the sum of utilities" ["Il est dans la lignée des travaux pionniers de Weber (1978), hélas tombés dans l’oubli pendant trop longtemps. … L’évaluation du système électoral est alors basée sur la valeur espérée de la somme des utilités"]
- "Implications of strategic position choices by candidates" by R Robinette, Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, 2023. SpringerLink
  - "I propose a refinement to the social utility efficiency metric to account for the different utility of the candidate’s chosen positions"
- "The relative efficiency of approval and Condorcet voting procedures" by S Merrill III and N Tideman, Rationality and Society, 1991. SAGE Journals
  - "the social utility efficiency of approval voting closely approximated that of a Condorcet-completion method (that of Black) and greatly exceeded that of single-vote plurality."
- "Comparing Approval At-Large to Plurality At-Large in Multi-Member Districts" by JA Hansen, ResearchGate. ResearchGate
  - "For a particular voting rule, we define the social-utility efficiency (SUE) as the ratio of the sum of the social utilities of all winners…"
- "Influence allocation methods in group decision support systems" by PA Balthazard, WR Ferrell, and DL Aguilar, Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, 1998. SpringerLink
  - "the results of analysis or simulation in terms of Condorcet efficiency or social utility efficiency, or strategies that maximize a voter’s influence over the outcome are not particularly useful to us."
- "Measuring majority power and veto power of voting rules" by AY Kondratev and AS Nesterov, Public Choice, Springer, 2020. SpringerLink
  - "however, the Borda rule provides slightly more social utility efficiency"
- "How frequently do different voting rules encounter voting paradoxes in three-candidate elections?" by F Plassmann and TN Tideman, Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, 2014. SpringerLink
  - "To our knowledge, Merrill (1984) provided the only previous empirical assessment of the Black rule—a calculation of the social-utility efficiency of this rule."
- "Range voting" by WD Smith, RangeVoting.org, 2000. PDF
  - "Merrill’s utility based substudy is suspicious because … All his data for 2-candidate elections had “100.0% social utility efficiency,” in his terminology."
- "Second Problem: How to Satisfy the Condorcet Criteria" by H Nurmi, Comparing Voting Systems, Springer, 1987. SpringerLink
  - "the Condorcet winning criterion does not coincide with another almost equally plausible criterion, viz. social utility efficiency (Weber, 1977)."
- "Making multicandidate elections more democratic" by S Merrill, De Gruyter, 1988. De Gruyter
  - "Chapter 3: SOCIAL-UTILITY EFFICIENCY"
- "STAR Voting, equality of voice, and voter satisfaction: considerations for voting method reform" by S Wolk, J Quinn, M Ogren, Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, 2023. SpringerLink
  - "To evaluate voting method accuracy and strategy resilience, we present the metrics Voter Satisfaction Efficiency (VSE) and Pivotal Voter Strategic Incentive (PVSI)."
- "The Pathologies of Voting Schemes" by J Zhang, University of Iowa, 2020. University of Iowa
  - "The difference between the achieved utility and the maximum potential utility is the Bayesian regret. A related concept is the Voter Satisfaction Efficiency (VSE), which expresses the same idea as Bayesian regret but as a percentage."
- "The case for approval voting" by A Hamlin, W Hua, Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, 2023. SpringerLink
  - "Recent research using computer simulations under a Monte Carlo method demonstrates that approval voting also produces winners that reliably maximize voter satisfaction (Quinn 2021)." "The ability of approval voting to select strong winners has been verified in multiple ways. The first of which is through the use of computer modeling (e.g. Smith 2006; Smith and Kok n.d.b.; Quinn 2021)."
- "The case for score voting" by WD Smith, Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, 2023. SpringerLink
  - "Computer simulations have been used to compare score versus other election methods by the criterion of Bayesian regret (BR)"
- "Ants, bees, and computers agree range voting is best single-winner system" by WD Smith, rangevoting.org, 2006. rangevoting.org
  - "Define the Bayesian regret (BR) of voting system E to be the expected regret exhibited by E."
- "Vote of no confidence" by P McKenna, New Scientist, Elsevier, 2008. ScienceDirect
  - "To gauge this he measured “Bayesian regret”, a parameter that attempts to quantify how unhappy groups of people are following a poor outcome."
- "Approval in the echo chamber" by B Armstrong, K Larson, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, benarmstrong.ca, 2017. benarmstrong.ca
  - "In particular, Smith provided results from a Bayesian regret analysis of approximately 2.2 million simulations showing…"
- "Gaming the vote: Why elections aren't fair (and what we can do about it)" by W Poundstone, books.google.com, 2008. Google Books
  - "He began with an idea for comparing the merits of different voting systems, using a measure called Bayesian regret."
- Not all of these search results refer to the same concept, but there are plenty of hits:
  - https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22social+utility+efficiency%22
  - https://www.google.com/search?q=%22voter+satisfaction+efficiency%22&tbm=bks
  - https://www.google.com/search?q=%22bayesian+regret%22+voting+method&tbm=bks — Omegatron (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
mind sharing a few? the measure has received coverage nearly exclusively by a dedicated tiny subset of election reform enthusiasts, and as far as I can tell just about zero coverage by any professional sources in the past several decades. Affinepplan (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
please note that the OP edited the comment since the reply. I stand by my statement. Pretty much 100% of this list either contains no mention of SUE or is a low quality / self-published source. Affinepplan (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this criticism of Omegatron's list. I checked three at random and two had, as far as I could see, no mention of this concept whatsoever. The other mentioned it in a single sentence as a possible comparison - not a good barometer of noteworthiness. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Bayesian regret is a different concept and not relevant to show the notability of SUE. and in fact, it already has its own (different) article Bayesian regret

2. the vast majority of those results for searches with "social utility efficiency" are pulling up keyword hits for fully different concepts.

I think you have just proved my point? Affinepplan (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are plenty of reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm not sure if your Bayesian Regret article is about the same concept. — Omegatron (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I spot checked 4 of those sources at random from the list you so helpfully wrote out and none of them even mentioned this metric once. Please don't just bluff and write random links with the assumption that I'm not going to read them. Affinepplan (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Affinepplan Every single one mentions it. I just spend an inordinate amount of time finding direct quotes for you. 😣 — Omegatron (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Bayesian Regret is a different concept. Please do not conflate the two, or think that mentions of bayesian regret implies notability for SUE

2. None of William Poundstone, Warren D Smith, Aaron Hamlin et. al, Wolk et al are authoritative sources w.r.t. notability; I would categorize them all as cranks to be quite blunt.

3. All the remaining quotes seem to cite the same Merril 1984 directly in passing but do not themselves examine the metric

I still remain unconvinced that this passes the notability bar. I would provide more detailed critiques of your list but it seems exhaustingly long. Could you maybe pare it down to what, in your opinion, are the most compelling top five sources and we can focus on those? Affinepplan (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I believe a possible solution might be to merge this into Implicit utilitarian voting. Both concepts seem to be very related, i.e., how well does a voting rule approximate the best possible utilitarian welfare, with Social utility efficiency seemingly being more experimental and Implicit utilitarian voting being more theoretical and worst-case oriented. The Implicit utilitarian voting article is not very up-to-date at the moment, however updating it and including Social utility efficiency as a small subsection on precursors might be worth it. Social utility efficiency on its own however does not seem notable enough for its own article. Also pinging @DominikPeters and @Erel Segal. Jannikp97 (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree these are very similar topics and merging them makes sense. I am less clear what the framing and the title of the merged article would ideally be. Currently, "implicit utilitarian voting" suggests that the aim is to design systems that do well on the distortion measure, while "social utility efficiency" stresses the idea of a metric. To me, the metric framing makes more sense. DominikPeters (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree on the metric angle making more sense. Jannikp97 (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps distortion deserves its own article? based loosely on the summaries in https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370215000892 and https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00911

and the SUE can be folded in as a side note. I am happy to defer to your recommendation of a merge rather than a delete. Affinepplan (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a completely different topic and it would be inappropriate to merge this into that. That is a voting system, this is a metric for measuring the performance of voting systems. That's like merging fuel efficiency into Toyota Corolla.

There is no problem with this article and no reason to delete or merge it; just leave it be. — Omegatron (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there is a problem --- the problem of WP:Notability Affinepplan (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hesitant to merge these, because these are two very different approaches (minimax regret vs. expected utility).

If they were merged, I'd agree with DominikPeters that merging in the opposite direction is probably better. Of the two approaches, expected utility is the older and more well-established concept, while relative distortion is a new-ish introduction from CS/algorithms—actually, the first paper discussing distortion (in 2006) talks about the already very long history of expected utility approaches to social choice:

most work in economics assumes cardinal preferences and takes a utilitarian approach. This viewpoint dates to the work of Bentham at the end of the 18th century, who argued that "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong." [...] The utilitarian approach is prevalent, for example, in mechanism design, and perhaps even more so in algorithmic mechanism design [Nisan 2007].

– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of the two approaches, expected utility is the older and more well-established concept

again, to be clear, this article is not about "expected utility." This article is about a so-called "SUE" which of course while bearing resemblances to expected utilities is not identical.

Please, I ask you again, remain on topic to this deletion discussion for this specific topic, and do not draw irrelevant comparisons or other non-sequiturs to obviously notable topics. Affinepplan (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The idea of comparing voting rules based on their utility is social choice and welfare economics 101. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this article is not about generally "the idea of comparing voting rules based on their utility." this article is about a particular --- nonnotable --- metric. I guess you would be referring to Utility or Comparison of voting rules#Utilitarian_models ? which yes, both of those are reasonable and notable articles & subsections.

Please focus on specifically the article for which I have nominated deletion, and not the general concept of "utility in social choice 101" Affinepplan (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can demonstrate noteworthiness. I don't think this has been done so far. Omegatron's list of articles seems to include some low-quality sources and many articles that don't actually mention or discuss this concept. And Closed Limelike Curves' comment is only really a defense of the much broader topic of comparing voting rules based on utility. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, ok, I think I understand the issue now. From what I can tell, you and Jannikp are interpreting the question as being about social utility efficiency as a mathematical expression (i.e. actual_utility / ideal_utility). I agree that's not notable, since it's just a slightly-different way of expressing the utility. However, DominikPeters, Omegatron, and I are thinking about how the term "social utility efficiency" is used in the literature, which is exclusively in the context of the SUE of a voting rule. In other words, the article is about applying the concept of utility to evaluating voting rules (because SUE is specific to social choice).

But all of this is a bit of a digression. Regardless of the title, the article mostly discusses comparisons of voting rules based on their expected utility, and the article actually discusses many slightly-different variations on the same metric (e.g. Bayesian regret, VSE, and SUE). This slight mismatch might warrant retitling it, but not deleting the content entirely. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> and I are thinking about how the term "social utility efficiency" is used in the literature,

it is not used in the literature.

> the article is about applying the concept of utility to evaluating voting rules

no it is not. it is about SUE.

can you please stay on-topic and stop muddying the discussion with unrelated commentary about the general concept of utility in social choice? this is the third time you've done so. Affinepplan (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me like the article Social utility efficiency as currently written is actually a particular metric. And based on a Google Scholar search, it doesn't seem like the phrase "social utility efficiency" is widely used in the literature at all. So unfortunately I don't follow your response. Gumshoe2 (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gumshoe2: Are there at least 3 sources? Yes. Are they reliable? Yes; at least 9 are peer-reviewed academic research. Are they independent of the original subject? Yes, at least 15 different unrelated authors. Is the coverage more than a trivial mention? Yes, it is even the main topic of some papers. This clearly meets the notability criteria. — Omegatron (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify a particular three you have in mind? As I said, at least some of the articles you gave don't seem to even mention the topic. Gumshoe2 (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that this AfD does not qualify for "Speedy keep".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Comparison of voting rules#Evaluation by metrics. The sources provided here show that its mention would be due there. Regardless of notability, which I take no position on, this topic is presented most clearly with other metrics for voting rules. I'm not concerned about making that section too long because I think it should probably be split out into its own article anyways, also for editorial reasons. In any case, this seems like a plausible search term; and redirection would be preferable to deletion. McYeee (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to merging it into a page about evaluating voting rules based on different metrics. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it can be merged with Implicit utilitarian voting. --Erel Segal (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Comparison of voting rules#Evaluation by metrics. I think the sourcing is there for WP:SIGCOV so a merge is not necessary. However, it would not be out of place in the Comparison of voting rules article. Oppose merge to Implicit utilitarian voting as these are two separate but related topics that can not be easily contained under a single title/scope.4meter4 (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Wynne–Parkin tornado

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

This article was first brought up on a project-space talk page by someone, although I can't remember exactly where. Seems to fail WP:NWEATHER from a cursory glance, no significant, lasting impacts, wasn't the deadliest tornado of the outbreak (which I know isn't a valid deletion reason), and over half of the references are to the NWS. E_F⁵ 20:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Tennessee. E_F⁵ 20:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed Deletion Only 13/30 resources are from NWS, which makes up 43%, so you saying over half are from NWS is hyperbolic. This caused a lasting impact in the city of Wynne and the tornado is talked about through articles to this day. Just because it wasn't the deadliest doesn't mean it doesn't deserve and article, using that logic, the Greenfield Tornado shouldn't get an article because it wasn't the deadliest tornado of the outbreak sequence, so yeah, how l the amount of death the tornado caused is not a valid reason to delete the article. Hoguert (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair with the Greenfield tornado rationale, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. E_F⁵ 20:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay comparing articles is not really a good argument on my part but I still stand by everything else I've said Hoguert (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a bit early to gauge a "lasting" impact, only one year after the event? Geschichte (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usually (at least with tornadoes), discussion of a tornado six months-or-so after the event shows the tornado’s lasting impacts, which I don’t see here. E_F⁵ 22:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify – For stand-alone articles on individual tornadoes, I look for a couple of things. (1) Is there lasting impacts and lasting coverage, (2) if out of draftspace, does the article have the potential to pass GAN (since to me, that helps establish if it deserves to be split from the outbreak article), and (3) size of article vs outbreak section.

Based on a quick Google search, I see lasting coverage, with several articles published related to the tornado and/or damage caused over a year later (examples: [40][41][42][43]) Two of those articles are related to the High School, so I see lasting impacts as well just based on those articles. In fact, searching "2023 Wynne tornado" and setting the news articles to start at the most recent shows an article within the last week related to the tornado/damage. So lasting coverage (WP:LASTING part of WP:Notability) is a checkmark.
Does it have enough to pass GAN? In my opinion, yes. It 100% needs some work done, which is why I also mentioned possible draftification. However, as a writer of several stand-alone GA tornado articles, roughly 20k bytes is the minimum for GAN potential. I know size itself is not factored into GAN, but 20k bytes or more in size most likely will give enough detail-based length for a successful GAN. This article has over 25k bytes, so a checkmark there.
Size comparison between 2023 Wynne–Parkin tornado & the parent section Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023#Wynne–Parkin–Turrell, Arkansas/Drummonds–Burlison, Tennessee. The section in the outbreak article, which is specifically for the damage path, is 11.5k bytes. The stand-alone section for the track is 13.4k bytes. An aftermath section specific to the tornado adds 2.4k bytes. The meteorological synopsis section is not unique, so that size does not count and neither does the introduction. So in all, the stand-alone article has roughly only 4,300 bytes (aka characters) worth of additional unique-to-the-tornado content. The outbreak section cites 3 sources for the tornado track, while the article cites about 23 sources for the track + aftermath sections. To me, the additional byte length is probably the sources. Therefore, there is not much unique-to-the-tornado content in the article. For me, this is the main reason I would say draftify rather than delete. To me, this point is an X.

More unique info over the outbreak section would for sure make it notable for an article. I am ok with it remaining an article itself under the ideology of WP:FIXIT occurring. I do not believe this should be deleted, but at the present moment, I am leaning against it remaining in mainspace without additional information being added to the article/aftermath section. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent analysis, I should probably use the “would it be a GA” test more often. I would also support draftification, as it’s clear a lot of work (kudos to Hoguert) was put into this article. E_F⁵ 22:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of sources to verify notability. There's still news coming out this year to back up the claims for lasting coverage. Also, I believe it was ChessEric who stated this shouldn't have an article - it was under the discussion for retiring WP:TOOSOON deletions when sources unambiguously do exist, and it was in the context of the Little Rock tornado. Departure– (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or draftify per The Weather Event Writer.4meter4 (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Payaza

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG. Sources are either run of the mill or routine announcements that adds zero value to the subject's notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Technology, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Press releases and announcements are not independent enough to meet the criteria for organisations. I’m unable to find independent sources to establish notability and would appreciate a ping if any is found. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's no doubt the article was poorly sourced earlier, however After a WP:BEFORE, I revamped the article and removed all press releases and routine mention. The organisation meet WP:GNG. They are notable tech industry per WP:ORGCRIT. Tesleemah (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article highlights Payaza's role as a notable Nigerian fintech company with independent coverage in reputable sources like BusinessDay, The Guardian, and ThisDay. Its initiatives, such as AI-driven hackathons and partnerships with organizations like UNIDO, demonstrate significant contributions to the tech and business sectors in Africa, meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria for organizations.Albakry028 (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Layton, Indiana

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

Baker, whom we do not cite, describes this as short-lived post office, with no other detail. That's consistent with the topos, which show a single farm across the road from the tracks. No evidence for a settlement beyond that. Mangoe (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree after some research that Layton was never a community, it was just a place name at most arising from the post office (which lingers on maps), and it would be a good guess that the post office was at the homestead of someone named Layton at that location.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above.TH1980 (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graham, Indiana

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

Baker doesn't cite his entries so I have no idea why he stated that this was a village. On the topos it looks like a rail spot, but there is just nothing there. If there ever was a village, it disappeared long ago. We need more than this. Mangoe (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Could ultimately end up as a redirect. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think there is a good reason to doubt Baker that this was once a populated place. Passes WP:GEOLAND.4meter4 (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is reason for doubt. We've been doing this for some years now, and we've gotten quite a bit of experience dealing with the various kinds of sources involved and reading the maps for verification. And what we found with GNIS also applies here: that some of these sources are being abused to some extent, because we are at cross-purposes with the authors. In the case of GNIS (and you need to read WP:GNIS if you haven't already) the issue was compounded by the mistakes the GNIS compilers made in looking at literally very label on every map in the country (plus other, far more dubious sources), but the issue in making articles here was that people made the default assumption that a name was a town, even though the purpose of GNIS was to standardize the names. Placenames origin books have the same issue: they are also about the names first of all and only secondarily about what they are attached to. And the rigor of these books varies. Durham out in California was meticulous about citing his sources, and the problems with him as a source were usually traced to misrepresentation of what he wrote. Baker, not as much. The general rule for the placename books is that if they say it was something other than a village, that generally fits with what we find on the maps and elsewhere; but if they say it was a village, that may or may not be borne out. If they or some other source says it was platted, that usually is borne out in the maps, because they will show a street grid; but we've had a couple of cases where a turn-of-the-century county history says "yeah, it was platted, but nothing ever came of it." These histories also have the tremendous advantage of being much closer in time to the origins of these places; in many cases the events are within living memory, whereas Baker was writing some sixty years later. So I'm disinclined to take Baker's villages at face value; we need something more. Unfortunately I have not found a county history in this case. Mangoe (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, problems with WP:V. Geschichte (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rural post offices and rail points were often named after the local landowner; that doesn't make them a "community", let along a recognized populated place. Given the many articles sourced only to Baker with no other information found anywhere, I don't think that book alone should count for verifiability or notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Facts supporting this community as being a notable one are too thin on the ground to establish it beyond a local level (if even that).TH1980 (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kids These Days (TV series)

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

Fails WP:GNG, passing mentions prove show existed, but nothing to prove notability DonaldD23 talk to me 00:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Lifetime#Original_programming -Mushy Yank. 10:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Lifetime#Former programming Sadly a remnant of when cable, and Lifetime in particular actually entertained and informed daily rather than just pushed one show all day in marathon form (this was not an original Lifetime production, but from an outside producer). Whatever sources there are for the show are likely paper or on a show website with parental resources that was pre-Google and never archived. Nate • (chatter) 17:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Today I added a review from the San Francisco Examiner and brief but significant coverage in The Hollywood Reporter, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and Broadcasting & Cable magazine. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Abdurrahman Farajajé

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

The only source that appears at all credible is the article "Whatever Way Love's Camel Takes: Remembering Baba Ibrahim Farajajé," which reads as more of a posthumous tribute than anything establishing notability, almost like an obituary (granted it was published a few years after his death, but the sentiment seems similar). All the other sources are either closely affiliated with the subject or do not appear to be generally reputable. An online search seems to return mostly the same things already being used as sources here, with an additional article on Google scholar that again appears to be a simple tribute. This individual certainly led an interesting life, but I see no evidence that they managed to attain notability. Anonymous 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Anonymous 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bloated bio of a scholar who appears to have made almost no impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
weak delete: More than a few journals remembered this individual after their passing, the one given in the article and this one [44]. With a book tribute here [A Legacy of Afrocentric, Decolonial, In-the-Life Theology and Bisexual Intersexional Philosophical Thought and Practice], but these all seem to be after this person passed away. I don't see much from when they were still alive. Oaktree b (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sexuality and gender, Religion, California, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep - hang on there is a 2023 festschrift dedicated to him - see, meeting WP:PROF criteria 1c Lajmmoore (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment I don't have time right now to work on it further, but these sources might help someone who does here, here (in Spanish), here Lajmmoore (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep anyone who gets a festschrift devoted to them (from non-fringe publications) is notable. Wow this article needs to be rewritten though, lot of NPOV issues PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article could use some improvement, but he's well-cited in scholarly literature. Yuchitown (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the cites? In GS there are only 9, and we usually expect several thousands. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

List of 1990s albums considered the best

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

The criteria for inclusion on this list seems utterly arbitrary, see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I'm not sure if WP:CFORK applies here, but I certainly don't see enough evidence of notability to pass WP:NLIST here in addition to the INDISCRIMINATE concern noted previously. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because of similar issues noted above. Not worthy of a standalone page, fails WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE and most of the (reliably) sourced content is already present in the articles of the albums listed: ~~:List of 1980s albums considered the best (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Strike, withdrawing AFD JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. I don't see how this is conceptually distinct from List of video games considered the best or List of Czech films considered the best, except that it is delineated by a decade. However, there are numerous instances of reliable sources gauging albums as best of over a given decade, as listed both with respect to these list articles, and with respect to the articles for the albums themselves. Clearly, WP:LISTN is met. BD2412 T 01:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite honest, I think that theoretically this could work as an all time list (like the articles you note), it just doesn't quite work forked into multiple decades since it gives it an overstuffed, WP:INDISCRIMINATE look. I think it would be better to take the albums that are most acclaimed by reliable sources from these lists, then assimilate them into a single list (see List of films voted the best). We'd need to make sure that there is no original research involved in singling albums out for inclusion, but I do think these lists could work consolidated into one list covering multiple decades' worth of music. Just my two cents, as the nominator. JeffSpaceman (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and maintain decade delineations per the arguments of User:BD2412. Paulie302 (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Better sourced than I thought it would be, definitely not INDISCRIMINATE in either sense of the word. Meets N and NLIST by WP:CSC number 1. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BD2412 and Jclemens. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 10:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. --Tupungato (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BD2412 and Jclemens. I was hesitant at first but User:Noble Attempt has done a really good job with sourcing to justify the lists' existences. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the way this discussion is playing out, I think it would be best to withdraw this now. While I would personally prefer that these lists not be delineated by decade, I can now say they definitely meet the criteria of WP:NLIST. Therefore, I am withdrawing this nomination. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee J. Slavutin

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

Created by a single purpose editor so possible promotion or autobio. A search for sources in google news and google books yielded nothing in depth. Mainly 1 line mentions in google books, this source "The Sid Kess Approach - Page 82" seems the only decent one. But fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, Australia, and New York. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Has about three papers that come up in Gscholar, not much of anything else really, mentioned here [45]. Doesn't seem to have made much notability for our purposes here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Support nomination rationale. Mekomo (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArkUI

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Rainsday (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to HarmonyOS: I found this paper about testing applications that use ArkUI. ASE is a legitimate venue for software engineering papers, so this definitely counts for notability.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything else. I found some routine coverage on Huawei Central authored by people with unknown credentials, but nothing else. While I could be convinced to shift this to a Keep if more sources emerge, I think that this content is best placed on HarmonyOS, given that the notability of the subject is questionable and every source I could find about ArkUI (including the one linked above) at least mentions HarmonyOS too. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArkGraphics 2D

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Rainsday (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HarmonyOS: Couldn't find anything to support notability from a WP: BEFORE. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArkGraphics 3D

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Rainsday (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to HarmonyOS: Couldn't find anything to support notability from a WP: BEFORE. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]