Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 24

Guide to deletion

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

The result was keep‎. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 22:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Maria Veretenina

Maria Veretenina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

• Some sources I managed to find: appearances on national TV and radio [1] (not original but appearance in ETV+), [2] [3] (Raadio 4) and reviews on Sirp [4] [5] and marriage. I made the search with "Maria Veretenina", but the search should be done in Russian, I think "Марии Веретениной". First results from that: long interview and another interview on Postimees but needs a paid subscription. There are more, but this should be enough to confirm it passes GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep in view of the sources identified above by Pelmeen10 which confirm national TV and radio performances and the Sirp reviews, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

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

• keep as my comment before didn't include a vote. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  I suggest not using the term "vote" in AfD's. Shadow311 (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  We all use "vote" but it is generally in quotes. People understand that it is not a vote count. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Myself Allen Swapan

Myself Allen Swapan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed during New page Patrol. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Bangladeshi streaming-only series. Of the two references, one is a review and the other is a link to their own commercial. Article was deleted in 2023 due to creation by a banned user and recreated February 2024 by a new user . North8000 (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: 1) given a review is cited a redirect to Syndicate_(TV_series)#Spin off is warranted ; 2) but there is plenty of coverage on this (including bylined articles), for example https://www.dhakatribune.com/showtime/309335/‘myself-allen-swapan’-streaming-this-eid ; https://www.tbsnews.net/splash/myself-allen-swapan-when-spin-outperforms-its-parent-series-622514 ; https://www.indiatoday.in/binge-watch/story/what-happens-when-a-wanted-criminal-pretends-to-be-your-husband-2366489-2023-04-30 : -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Galician exonyms

Galician exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Spain. toweli (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete potentially endless lists of trivial examples of an obvious phenomenon. —Tamfang (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Maltese exonyms

Maltese exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Indiscriminate largely unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Malta. toweli (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: another potentially endless list of examples of the trivial fact that each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography. —Tamfang (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two previous AFDs, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Since Malta never had sovereignty over these areas and the Maltese language has not been spread there, this fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Geschichte (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Catalan exonyms

Catalan exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Spain. toweli (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography, okay, we get it; no need for another potentially endless list of trivial examples. —Tamfang (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Discuss. I do not understand how there are just 8 articles of exonyms right now in AfD, each one with its own discussion, when the same reasons can be applied to the 92 articles that populate Category:Lists of exonyms, or at least, to the 43 mentioned in {{Exonyms per language}}. It would not be fair to delete these 8 articles and allow Greek exonyms, Spanish exonyms or Dutch exonyms to survive when they are essentially the same concept of list in a different language. In my opinion the proposals should be centralized into a single discussion of all articles, the navbox and the categories. --SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 11:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Well, there have been attempts to group all those articles into one AfD nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of names of European cities in different languages and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms. They failed due to the large amount of articles being considered, resulting in no consensus. Additionally, some of those (but probably not most) might be notable. toweli (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  And some of the reasons I gave don't apply to some of the lists, not all of them are unreferenced (there may be at least a book/link in the references section), not all of them are indiscriminate (i.e. they focus on a specific region, like Hungarian toponyms in Prekmurje). They're probably still not wiki-notable, though. toweli (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Not all exonym lists are equal. I would preserve, for example, German names for places formerly in Germany or the Habsburg empire; or lists that concentrate on nontrivial differences. —Tamfang (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, well, yes, this does seem to be both indiscriminate and uncited, and looking far too much like a bit of dictionary. That doesn't mean that a proper article on the formation of Catalan exonyms would not be of interest, if reliable sources can be found for that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Bulgarian exonyms

Bulgarian exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Bulgaria. toweli (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• It could be worth keeping if it excludes obvious respellings. —Tamfang (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms) so Soft Deletion isn't an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. There is a definition of exonyms given by the UN that means that such lists are not indiscriminate, but instead pass WP:LISTCRITERIA. By all means cull items that should not be there (such as toponyms that are the mere result of orthographic rules in different languages). But such lists themselves are encyclopedic. As for appealing to recent rulings, what's actually happened is that there has been a huge bunch of individual nominations, some closed very quickly, without any notification placed on the page most people interested in the topic would see: Talk:Endonym and exonym. OsFish (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Dylan Besseau. Owen× ☎ 18:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

La légende de Thierry Mauvignier

La légende de Thierry Mauvignier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

None of the (non primary) sources here even mention the documentary, they're all on La Légende des seigneurs assassins (which this is a documentary about the making of??? why would someone make an article on the making of film and not the actual main film???). Even with that all the sources here are quite regional French sources under what is required from NFILM, so I have no clue if that other film is notable (could be, just judging off what's in the page). This was deleted on frwiki 3 years ago; I think this and several related articles (Thierry Mauvignier, Dylan Besseau, Guillaume Gevart) may have some promotional stuff going on here and on simple wikipedia but it is difficult to tell what exactly is happening here. There is this I found in a search which might be ok but it is the only thing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and France. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dylan Besseau: or to Thierry Mauvignier#Biography. (Aside: replying to the nominator's question, the article they quote states: "Although this institutional project was initially intended as a making-of, it has become a work in its own right, surpassing the reputation that Thierry Mauvignier's short film was expected to obtain - the greatest irony for a film that was intended to be rather confidential') -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  I saw that but it seemed contradictory to me because there are far less sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with you but I was just trying to reply to your question :D. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Melissa Carper

Melissa Carper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant independent coverage, failure to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for musicians. Also, the use of IMDb website tells us a lot. Old-AgedKid (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Nebraska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete- Getting a song into one episode of a TV show was a nice break, but building an article around that one achievement violates WP:BLP1E. Otherwise she gets occasional softball interviews in specialist magazines (e.g. [6]) but she seems to be a local/regional musician with little reliable media coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - there is a lot more coverage out there, including one of her albums being named one of the best country albums of the year by Rolling Stone. Also added PopMatters and Houston Press references. There's more out there. I'll try to improve as I have time. Nnev66 (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep also found an AllMusic staff written bio here which together with the references from Rolling Stone, Pop Matters and others shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Weak Keep (changed vote) - Changing my vote above because the musician was profiled in Rolling Stone, though her reliable sources are still a little scant. There may be enough for a stub article that can be improved over time. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Los Angeles Organizing Committee for the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games

Los Angeles Organizing Committee for the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, article is essentially just a list of people so nothing to merge. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Olympics. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to be the standard style for OOC articles and the GNG is passed, and of course it's four years off so right now it's all planning and no actual events have occurred. Nate • (chatter) 23:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't even see GNG being met. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Per Category:Organising Committees for the Olympic Games, this seems to be the general Wikipedia listings for how these are structured. Varies a little by country and/or year, but I think this is the established method. — Maile (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  Other stuff isn't a valid deletion rationale. The general Wikipedia rule is that organisations meet WP:NCORP. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  There is an entire Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Manual of Style and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics. It's a more detailed process than just tagging something with failing NCORP. And it takes months to put these together. The above organizing committee is just one of the steps to go through. If you are concerned about how this one is going, you might consider joining the dialogues at that project, before you start listing their works for deletion. 23:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)— Maile (talk)

  So what? There are WikiProjects for many things, it doesn't mean they get to ignore our notability guidelines. The Olympics are 4 years away, if it can't be made ready yet then it shouldn't be in mainspace. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Kyaw Myint

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Kyaw Myint
• Articles for deletion/Kyaw Myint Tun

Kyaw Myint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article probably describes a person who does not exist, and is a composite of several sources. Four sources are cited in the article, each referring to a different person.

1. Source 1 is an article about U Kyaw Win, the founder of Myanmar May Flower Bank. The article also mentions U Kyaw Myint, the owner of Golden Flower Co., Ltd, but this is not reflected in the Wikipedia article.
2. Source 2 introduces U Kyaw Myint, Director General of the Directorate of Industry under the Ministry of Industry 1. He is not related to U Kyaw Win or U Kyaw Myint, the owner of Golden Flower Co., Ltd.
3. Sources 3 and 4 present "Pansay" Kyaw Myint, a Namkham militia leader and elected Member of Parliament. He is not related to any of the individuals described in sources 1 and 2. Nux-vomica 1007 (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Myanmar. Shellwood (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• I have corrected the prose (now really fixed: Special:Diff/1247585806/1247587904).—Alalch E. 15:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  1. U Kyaw Win, the founder of Myanmar May Flower Bank is the Kyaw Win discussed in the last paragraph of Chinese people in Myanmar § Commerce and industry. This is not an article about this individual. This article is titled "Kyaw Myint" and has been about Kyaw Myint, Director General of the Directorate of Industry, from the beginning. Information about Kyaw Win was erroneously added to the article in Special:Diff/307034345. There is a revision with content only about Kyaw Win, in Special:PermanentLink/1247585806. There are various sources about Kyaw Win, who is sometimes called "May Flower" Kyaw Win to differentiate him from other people named Kyaw Win (an example of another Kyaw Win: Kyaw Win).—Alalch E. 00:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
  2. U Kyaw Myint, Director General of the Directorate of Industry under the Ministry of Industry is the subject of this article. He does not appear to meet WP:N. As of my writing this comment, the article correctly covers only him.
  3. The "Pansay" Kyaw Myint is indeed a third person. Information about him was added in Special:Diff/600987091. I have not yet looked into his notability.

  —Alalch E. 00:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Delete Right now, the one source about Kyaw Myint, the politician, is not WP:Independent as its an interview with him. Additionally, the article is from 2004 so I doubt he is still currently in the same political position given 3 different administrations have changed in between. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already brought to AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Only one source is cited in the article, and it is more about a factory than U Kyaw Myint. The removed content was about two other individuals, so those sources don't affect WP:N for this article. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. A lot of change can happen to a subject's career in the 9 years since the last AFD nomination and in this case, it looks like there is a consensus to Keep. Typically article page moves are not part of an AFD closure but since this involves removing full protection, I'll carry this out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Klea pineda

Klea pineda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Recreation of salted title at Klea Pineda, which was deleted at this AfD back in 2015. Subject does not seem to be notable enough for a standalone article, and clearly fails WP:GNG. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Philippines. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Shellwood (talk) 10:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: she's in the recurring/supporting cast of various (post 2015 (ie post 1st AfD)) notable programmes, so that she meets WP:NACTOR and deletion is not necessary in my opinion. But obviously renaming the page without the (voluntary?) typo is necessary. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nom. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 16:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Nine years after the original AFD, she already enough acting credits to merit her own article (and I can confirm these are not simple bit roles, having watched some of them). Most of the sources now cited in the article are from reputable and notable Philippine news organizations. So this time this article can be a keep. --- Tito Pao (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Page creator here, Klea Pineda has grown so much since she started, that she should receive her own Wikipedia page. She is a competition show winner, starred in multiple TV series, even headlining in some and she has been making in showbiz news for the right reasons. If certain improvements must be done in her page just to keep it, then I would need the help to polish up the page (including fixing the typo, I wasn't sure I could've created it if I spelled it correctly because of the page's history) and make it as good as all the Wikipedia pages of her fellow Pinoy celebrities, so that it may showcase more people to Klea and her talents. Ethanco924 (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep and rename as Klea Pineda: Per reasons above. She has been bagging main roles since Magkaagaw. And all the sources, except for her profile, are reliable. Though the said target should be unsalted for the sake of naming conventions, the article is good enough to pass WP:NACTOR. ASTIG😎🙃 07:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, unsalt "Klea Pineda" and move this article to "Klea Pineda"; subject of the article has become undisputedly notable since the last AFD. Would advise against similar saltings on similar articles in the future. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) HueMan1 (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Kay-Anlog, Calamba

Kay-Anlog, Calamba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails notability WP:GEOLAND, Barangays are not considered being notable. Please see here the similar deletion (which is converted the redirect), for more details. TentingZones1 (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. TentingZones1 (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. HueMan1 (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, part of an AFD nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barandal, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Calamba,_Laguna#Barangays per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Some other deletion discussions mostly were kept. This article is in good shape and has a lot of information, hence keep. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: When becomes as a redirect, Calamba,_Laguna#Barangays. Makes it some knowledge about this barangay. Soft deletion if not redirected, resulting the article links were comes in various articles, which is problematic due of lack of sources. When the vote changed in keep, unless the reliable sources and information are available for this article. TentingZones1 (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. User:TentingZones1, I see three outcomes you are arguing for which makes it difficult to know what your ultimate choice is. And as I stated, in my previous relisting statement, this AFD is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I will withdraw the article for deletion. TentingZones1 (talk) 08:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

List of storms named Hugo

List of storms named Hugo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

PROD undone by author. WP:NLIST not met here. Did a search and could only find Hurricane Hugo as the main topic. Although it is a WP:SETINDEX, it is still required to meet the notability requirements of a WP:STANDALONE. Conyo14 (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as author. Harmless storm index article. It seems that the nominator isn't at all familiar with these types of pages (and I've created numerous SIA's). The name Hugo has been used in more than one basin, so the name perfectly qualifies for a storm index article; and there's a strong possibility that it gets re-used in the future since it has been included in the list of names for the 2024–25 European windstorm season. No valid reasons for deletion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep SIAs don't have to be a notable topic themselves but may be a list of topics that are notable on their own.

Noah, BSBA^Talk 14:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:ONEOTHER - the 1989 hurricane is very obviously the primary topic. Hatnotes linking the two pages should do the job. JavaHurricane 18:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  Also, I'm aware of WP:SETNOTDAB, and it doesn't change my view: where a SIA consists of only two entities, where one is clearly the primary topic (and in this case, the other entity, the 2018 windstorm, doesn't even have its own article), hatnotes are a more efficient method of handling the situation than a full-fledged list. And as for Yoris's argument, WP:CRYSTAL applies - future systems sharing the name can be handled at the time they actually happen.

  On a side note, I'm interested in knowing why a SIA about systems of the same name is not, in practice, a disambiguation page. JavaHurricane 19:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I would support hatnotes if it weren't common practice to create a storm index with only two entries. See Category:Set index articles on storms, which is filled with lists containing only two entries (e.g. List of storms named Andrew, List of storms named Beta, List of storms named Evelyn, etc.), so for consistency's sake this one should be kept as well. And I hate making a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, but I just couldn't avoid it. Also, I don't think the winter storm is relevant enough for mentioning at the Hurricane Hugo article (not even as a hatnote), since hurricanes and winter storms are completely different weather systems, and it would be odd for someone to confuse them both. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

On the latter point there also exist counterexamples - such as 1935 Labor Day hurricane's hatnote. Don't think it is even that odd to confuse tropical and non-tropical cyclones - the term "storm" can be quite ambiguous for an uninitiated reader. On the former point, I repeat my previous question. JavaHurricane 12:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

But that's likely because the 1935 hurricane is unnamed (i.e. has no official name), and was named "Labor Day" because it made landfall on that exact date. However, I see no counterexamples for storms that have official names, at least none that I could find. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: per javahurrincae Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per Cyclone Yoris and Noah - don’t see any valid reasons for deletion. Absurdum4242 (talk) 05:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep as there are three topics in the SIA. Tavantius (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm not sure of the nuances of WP:SETINDEX and storm index articles but I know that I don't see any consensus here. Sinces sources don't matter here, it seems like precendence might and if there is the standard format for strom lists, maybe that should be a consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as set indices articles (SIA). – The Grid (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep this article meets all the criteria of SIA for storms, and it's easy to see the precedents. There are no valid reasons for deletion.DesiMoore (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Hurricane Noah. Piscili (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Maika Ceres

Maika Ceres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article is written from unreliable, non-independent, or self-published sources like blogs, social media, press releases, etc. Not clear the subject passes WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Uruguay. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Blagica Pop Tomova

Blagica Pop Tomova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article is based entirely on the website of the subject's employer. Not clear that the topic passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and North Macedonia. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Yasheel Aukhojee

Yasheel Aukhojee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to be largely promo for the business. Sources are interviews or profiles of the company. He's a doctor that does at-home visits, which is rather routine. I find nothing in news or other searches that would help us prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Mauritius. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. The article spends more space explaining how ethnically diverse Mauritius is, and how he went to a fourth-rate medical school in Russia to study medicine, and how nice he is to old people, but doesn’t explain how he’s notable. Bearian (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Philanthropist? Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Elena Pankratova

Elena Pankratova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article is largely built from the website's of the subjects employers and therefore they lack independence. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Russia. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. According to the article, she’s sung in two cities; that’s not a tour. She also has a fairly limited repertoire. Bearian (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 00:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Irina Mataeva

Irina Mataeva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article is written like a resume and based on sources connected to the subject. Not clear the article passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Russia. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Userfy. We need more research. Right now, the article is in pretty bad shape. However, if she does have this wide range of repertoire, and she has toured and performed in multiple cities with important companies, and she had a role of the protagonist’s love interest of Tatyana in Eugene Onegin, and we can find sources that document all of it, then she is notable per WP:MUSICBIO. That’s a lot of work. Bearian (talk) 02:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bearian I would support moving it to user or draft space if someone wants to work on it and needs time to source the article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Not sure if I can do it, due to being busy IRL. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Draftify seems like a good solution; if no one works on it for 6 months, it gets deleted. A quick search on ProQuest yields 115 results, many of which include substantive comments about Irina Mataeva's performances in those lead roles. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Arcline Investment Management

Arcline Investment Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine business news. scope_creep^Talk 12:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Tennessee. – The Grid (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I created the article after learning of the Omega Engineering incident, which was a notable computer sabotage attack in American history. Arcline has been acquiring companies, like Omega Engineering, and I simply wanted to create the article for the parent company. Note: At least 3 companies have Wikipedia articles that link to the parent company, Arcline. These companies also have subsidiaries which could make use of the Arcline article as a focal point. More can be added to the article but, nevertheless, I leave it in your competent hands. Usedbook (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete I'm unable to locate any references that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability, as said above, references appear to be based on company announcements, there are none with in-depth "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 18:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Andy Dennehy

Andy Dennehy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable amateur sports person. In terms of WP:SPORTBASIC, the only coverage I can find is the stuff that I've added to the article. Most of which is not independent (like "listings" on personnel sheets of orgs with which the subject has a connection like these: [7][8][9]; Which, even if they were independent, are far from in-depth coverage). Or ROTM "match report" type passing mentions (like these: [10] [11]). In terms of WP:GNG, we barely have enough sources to establish even the sub-stub that we have. And certainly insufficient sources to expand any biographical information (DOB, place of birth, education, etc). A search in Irish news sources returns little to nothing. In the Irish Independent family of regional/national papers for example, all I can find are these two trivial passing mentions. Similar searches, in news sources like the Irish Examiner or Irish Times or RTE.ie, return nothing at all. Nothing. Not even trivial passing mentions. Notability is not established. Guliolopez (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Guliolopez (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. I know nothing about how significant American football is in Ireland. That said, being one of the initial inductees into the Hall of Fame for American football in Ireland suggests he was at a minimum a pretty big frog in a little pond. Cbl62 (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Ramsey Faragher

Ramsey Faragher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of notability besides a few academic sources, doesn't appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG - *maybe* you can argue that the company is relevant? But he as a person doesn't seem to be Toffeenix (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Technology, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. This is one of those odd instances where Wikidata and the article history include what look like several claims to notability that are completely unmentioned in our present article. He is a Fellow of the Royal Institute of Navigation and the 2023 recipient of their Harold Spencer-Jones Gold Medal for an outstanding contribution to navigation [12]. He is also the 2023 recipient of the Dennis Gabor Medal and Prize [13]. They are all personal honors rather than indirect through his company. That looks arguably like a pass of WP:PROF#C3 and a double pass of #C2, if we agree that those are national-level awards for scholarly contributions and a highest-level honorary membership in a major scholarly society. Are they? He also has what looks like a strong citation record [14] in a field whose citation patterns are unfamiliar to me, arguably enough for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Leaning Keep. I have added the above two awards to the article including supporting citations. With both the awarded recognition from notable academic institutions and healthy citation record I consider there is sufficient for this PNT specialist to be worthy an article and meet the WP:NPROF guidelines. For the record - in my view - this discipline does not typically attract heavy citation counts so what we see here is fairly high. ResonantDis_tortion 23:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I agree with David, his awards appear to be fairly major national awards so pass NPROF. When I look at some of the prior awardees they are FRS and one Dame, clearly strong enough. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per my longer comment earlier and as above. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Symbhav

Symbhav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 11:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

C. K. Durga

C. K. Durga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotion with "sources" like X or Facebook; I doubt the page meets GNG and BIO requirements. Old-AgedKid (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Medicine, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Question: Is winning an Nari Shakti Puraskar award enough for WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC? I don't see any WP:SIGCOV for this subject but she appears to have a significant academic track record, for which she won the aforementioned award.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 00:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

S. J. Dahlstrom

S. J. Dahlstrom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable writer, doesn't pass WP ANYbio and other guidelines. J. P. Fridrich (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. I created the article because I believe the subject passes WP:NAUTHOR due to the awards. Also worth saying is that the nominator of this discussion only had 11 edits before nominating this article, all of them made on a single day in 2022. Badbluebus (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. given the sources found. If you want to change the article page title or orientation, please start a discussion on the talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Sherman Dam

Sherman Dam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I failed to find SIGCOV for the Sherman Dam besides this one newspaper article from 1963. Otherwise, all mentions appear to be trivial in nature, indicating it fails GNG and WP:NBUILD. Perhaps others will have more luck. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Like many dam articles including some at List of dams and reservoirs in Nebraska, the article also covers its reservoir, and the full entity is certainly notable as both infrastructure and a recreation site. Sources include [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] Reywas92^Talk 13:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  It seems like you are just randomly posting anything with the name appearing in it. If that were enough, almost everything would have a Wiki article. We are talking about reliable and significant coverage from secondary sources, not literally any Google hit. I can't really check the newspaper ones to see if those are major though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  Please don't insult my ability to review sources, especially if you didn't even review them all. Several of these are in fact substantial coverage adequate for creating an article , and you can sign up for newspapers.com access through Wikipedia:Library. The site seems to be buggy now so it's not letting me create clippings. Indeed, major physical features like resevoirs and infrastructure like dams, especially those that feature state recreation areas, typically have Wiki articles, and this one is notable. Reywas92^Talk 21:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Here are clippings for the Newspapers.com links: 1 (cont.), 9 (cont.), 10, 11. (It's still possible to make clippings through the library but not easy to set up; the process is detailed in the comments here.) – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Seems to me that the reservoir may be more notable than the dam itself which mostly gets mentioned in passing. I'd be fine with withdrawing if the article is moved to Sherman Reservoir instead. The dam can be retained as a redirect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  Per the above, there are at least three lengthy newspaper articles from newspapers.com covering the dam itself. Unless you want to disagree this is significant coverage, it would seem to me the proper thing to do is to withdraw the AfD and then try to gain consensus at the article talk page for a rename. Oblivy (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  I do not have a preference if the article is titled for the dam or reservoir – there is not a consistent convention for this since sources may variously cover either or both. I am supportive if you want to go ahead and withdraw and make the move without further discussion. Reywas92^Talk 20:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep the sources identified by @Reywas92 are a mixed bag, but the U of Nebraska museum article and the Foxnebraska article are both significant coverage. Per WP:GEOLAND dams can be notable with significant independent coverage, and as Reywas92 says the article includes the reservoir which doesn't have its own article. Oblivy (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Jana Jonášová. There is no Keep sentiment, but not enough discussion to resolve the two proposed options of Delete or Redirect. So I'm closing with the latter as the alternative to deletion that preserves the history in case additional sources for notability are available in the future. RL0919 (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Hana Jonášová

Hana Jonášová (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2012. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Czech Republic. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete does not seem to pass the notability criteria. AntEgo (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to her mother Jana Jonášová per WP:NOTINHERITED if sources can't be found. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider whether this article should be Deleted or Redirected to Jana Jonášová.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need some fresh opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Flash Element TD

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Flash Element TD
• Articles for deletion/Flash Element TD (2nd nomination)

Flash Element TD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. The largest review I found is still relatively tiny. There is simply insufficient SIGCOV to justify an article at all, with the previous AfD citing mere announcements. What was good enough for 2011 is no longer good enough for 2024. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: The developer of this game is listed as a co-founder of Kixeye. IgelRM (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. I found a little more coverage of the game (here and here), which, while not exactly stellar, is sufficient to keep the article alongside the other sources. Cortador (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:NOTTEMPORARY, what was good enough for 2011 is still good enough, unless there's a very specific guideline change that negates previous arguments. -Fangz (talk)
  • Also I found this academic article discussing the game. [26] and this Masters Thesis [27] -Fangz (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, Fangz is right; getting discussed by academics and featuring so heavily (extended text about the game, and a statement that it was one of two games that inspired the investigation) in an MSc elevates it beyond run-of-the-mill game, and gives notability. Elemimele (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, I was saying that the 2011 discussion was not up to 2024 standards, not that the article's notability suddenly "disappeared".

  To call the new sources trivial mentions is putting it lightly, I simply don't agree it stacks up. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was moot‎. I'm boldly implementing the reverse merger as an editorial action, thus making the AfD moot. This is under the expectation that it is uncontroversial, so feel free to simply revert this if objecting. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

LONGi

LONGi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Duplicate of LONGi Green Energy Technology Amigao (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect: Two article instances which have developed in parallel over the years. There is additional information in this one which can be merged, and then a redirect can simplify while maintaining the history attribution. AllyD (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  I have added Merge from/to tags to the two articles, so that the proposal is visible to readers of both articles. AllyD (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• A merge seems both technically simple and unlikely to be controversial, though if I had to pick a title I'd actually do LONGi Green Energy Technology into LONGi, since the latter title seems sufficient to uniquely identify the subject. Would anyone object to doing this reverse merge, so that LONGi is the final title, and additionally doing so immediately and closing this discussion? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  A reverse merge, as you propose, seems like a good course of action. - Amigao (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

U-12 European Baseball Championship

U-12 European Baseball Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Just a results listing with only sources being primary. Fails GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Baseball, and Europe. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, complete trivia. Geschichte (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Fails GNG . --181.197.42.150 (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Pobe-Mengao Department. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Pobé Mengao attack

Pobé Mengao attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:News article, I'm unable to find WP:SUSTAINED coverage Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Africa. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Merge to either the place it occurred Pobe-Mengao Department in a history section or Jihadist insurgency in Burkina Faso#2019. The place is a better target imo but a mention should be added to the other PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Liz I prefer Pobe-Mengao Department as a merge target. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge and, if so, a decision on an appropriate target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We still need to settle on one Merge target if that is an appropriate ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Disregarding the socks, this is a clear Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hadiseh Jamal

Hadiseh Jamal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails notability, her achievements (even if they are correct) are in youth level. she never won anything in a major event. the article tries to sell her as a world and Asian senior medalist. Sports2021 (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Martial arts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Only success has come in junior events. According to the WKF records, she has competed in 9 events as an adult and never medaled. As an adult she has never qualified for a continental or world championship and is currently ranked #90. I found no significant independent coverage, mainly reports of Iranian youth team results. Doesn't meet any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep In karate, unlike many other sports, there is no significant difference between the youth (under-21) and adult competitions in terms of credibility and status. In fact, both the youth and adult categories are evaluated at the same level, and there is no distinction in the value and importance of their achievements. This is often misunderstood by those who lack sufficient expertise in this sport. Many uninformed individuals, including some media outlets, may assume that youth competitions are less important than adult competitions. However, the reality is that youth competitions in karate are held with the same level of difficulty and seriousness, and the medals earned in both categories hold equal credibility and value.Particularly in prestigious continental events like the Asian Championships, which are overseen by the World Karate Federation (WKF), the medals are recognized as global successes. The quality of these competitions does not differ from that of adult competitions, and in many cases, athletes who achieve medals in the youth category quickly find remarkable success at the international adult level as well.This misunderstanding regarding the differences between age categories leads some individuals to fail to recognize the valuable achievements of athletes. However, from the perspective of experts and those who are deeply familiar with the structure of karate, such successes, even in the youth category, are by no means less significant than those in the adult category.Please advise users who lack sufficient knowledge about this sport not to remove templates or edit the article, as doing so only harms the integrity of information, such as that found on Wikipedia in English, and spreads misinformation about karate. Maintaining accuracy and reliability in the discourse surrounding this sport is essential.InfoExplorer2023 (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Completely fails sports notability. Lekkha Moun (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep The issue of deleting certain sports articles, particularly regarding karate, requires careful and in-depth consideration. In this discipline, competitions and medals directly reflect the high level of skill and experience of the athletes. Karate, as a martial art, demands advanced techniques and high concentration, which can only be achieved through continuous practice and competition at the adult level.In karate, there is no separation between age categories, and all competitions are held in a professional and competitive manner. Winning a medal in Asian competitions, regardless of age, demonstrates the high abilities and skills of this athlete at an international level.Deleting these articles is not only incorrect but also unjustifiable from the perspective of the documentation and credibility of Wikipedia's sources. These articles can remain as reliable references in the field of karate and contribute to documenting the history and achievements of athletes.Therefore, based on my expertise in Wikipedia and the sport of karate, I firmly state that this article should be preserved to enhance the recognition of karate athletes' achievements and to document the history of this sport within Wikipedia.BookLover070 (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Parsa Mohammadi

Parsa Mohammadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails notability, never even participated in a major event let alone winning something. he never won that medal mentioned in the article. Sports2021 (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Still another junior karateka with no success as an adult. The silver medal it shows for him at the Asian championships was in a cadet division (clear because the weight division given isn't used for adults and because he was only 15). The WKF database shows he won two fights to win the silver. He has never competed in a European or world championship as an adult. In fact, the WKF doesn't show him competing in any event as an adult yet. The sources are all from state media reporting on team results. No WP notability criteria are met. Papaursa (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I would like to provide some explanations regarding the proposal to delete this article, which may offer a different perspective on the issue. In karate, competitions and medals are directly related to the high level of skill and experience of the athletes. In this sport, there is no separation between age categories, and all competitions are highly competitive and professional.As a martial art, karate requires a high level of technique and focus, which can only be achieved through continuous training and competition at the adult level. In fact, karate practitioners compete with adults from the very beginning, and competitions are held in a professional and rigorous manner. The fact that the silver medal won at the Asian Championships for this athlete, regardless of age, reflects their high skill level and abilities on an international scale.Furthermore, deleting this article is not only incorrect but also unjustifiable according to Wikipedia's guidelines. This article should remain as a credible reference in the field of karate, as every sport requires documentation and resources that help showcase the history and achievements of its athletes.Ultimately, considering these points, deleting the article is not only a mistake but also results in the loss of an important part of the history and achievements of this athlete. The article should remain to aid in documenting and legitimizing this athlete’s contributions in the future.BookLover070 (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

— BookLover070 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

BookLover070 has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. More importantly, he fails to show the subject meets WP:GNG or any SNG. His argument boils down to WP:ILIKEIT. He even contradicts himself. First he makes the incorrect statement that karate has "no separation between age categories, and all competitions are highly competitive and professional" when the article clearly shows the subject's success was only in youth divisions. Then he says "karate requires a high level of technique and focus, which can only be achieved through continuous training and competition at the adult level." This again argues against subject's WP notability. There's a reason that WP:MANOTE says that only success in adult black belt divisions shows competitive WP notability (and then only for high level tournaments). Papaursa (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable athlete. No success as an adult. Fails notability. Lekkha Moun (talk) 07:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. We all wish to minimize unnecessary churning, but "it will be recreated anyway" is not a valid P&G-based argument to keep a page that doesn't meet our inclusion criteria today. Owen× ☎ 20:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

2028 Northern Territory general election

2028 Northern Territory general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Article only has one source, and it does not say anything about the election in 2028. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Thought about a redirect but I really couldn't find a suitable target. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  redirect to Northern Territory Legislative Assembly maybe? otherwise yeah delete Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Move to Next Northern Territory general election. No point in deleting the page when it will only need to be remade again. Viatori (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Deleting an article does not prevent it from being recreated when more sources emerge. Having to be remade again is a given and is not a reason against deletion. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Move to Next Northern Territory general election or keep, for the same reasons as Viatori. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. Just a point of information, an AFD closer can not close a discussion with a decision to "Move" an article because that is an editing decision. So, if you want to Move this article, "vote" Keep and then have a Move discussion afterwards on the article talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Neutral on keeping the article, but just wanted to say that the suggestions of moving it to Next Northern Territory general election are misplaced. "Next" is used in election article titles when the date of the next election is uncertain. However, Northern Territory has fixed-term parliaments and the next election must take place in 2028, so the current title is correct. Number 57 01:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • 'Keep since the previous election cycle is over and there is now verifiable information about the next. In terms of naming, the 2008 Northern Territory general election indicates that elections can be called early? Has something changed on a constitutional level? -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete TOOSOON and page recreation in 2027 when it's appropriate is not that hard. Nate • (chatter) 16:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as per Nate, too soon - recreate much closer to the date when it’s not just speculation. Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Isabelle Poulenard

Isabelle Poulenard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2019. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 04:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and France. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. Feel free to discuss an article page move now that the AFD is closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Donald MacMillan (rugby union)

Donald MacMillan (rugby union) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No sources, and seems to have no real notability. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Known as "Ian" rather than Donald, which may assist your searches. Plenty of coverage on Trove and I've added some of them to the page. Got more results for the typo "Mc"Millan.[28] Jevansen (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to have a review of the new content additions. Also, please do not move an article that is the subject of an AFD discussion during the AFD. It confuses our editing tool, XFDcloser which doesn't understand why the article is at a different name.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Was not aware of this. Jevansen (talk) Jevansen (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Per the new sources add, meets NSPORT. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 08:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Alireza Hashemzadeh

Alireza Hashemzadeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails notability, most probably everything in this article is fake. he never won a gold medal at the Asian Games or 2019 Asian Senior Championships! he never participated in any major event. Sports2021 (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete He did not compete at the 2018 Asian Games, so that claim is false. The WKF database shows he is a registered competitor, but they show no record of him competing at any of their events. There are over 350 ranked competitors in his division, but he is not listed. The sources don't show WP notability or, in the case of his supposed Asian Games championship, what they're claimed to show. There is a source showing he won a bronze medal at the "2nd World Goju Karate Championship" in 2013 (he'd have been 17 or 18). The host South Africans won 21 of the 55 gold medals. His age, the medal distribution, and the fact that many of the divisions didn't even have enough competitors to give out all 4 medals all seem to point to this being a relatively minor event. I don't believe the coverage meets WP:GNG as it consists of lots of congratulatory reporting on results and celebrations over success at minor events. No evidence that any WP notability criteria is met. Papaursa (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further evaluation of the newly added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Looking through the added sources, and relying on Google translate, I found claims of international and world championships, but none of them specified the division or sponsoring organization. The most I found was a claim that he won a youth world championship, but there's no record of him competing at any WKF event. There were also interviews of him saying he would be training to compete at the Olympics, but again there's no record of him competing in any qualifying events. I saw no evidence of him meeting WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Please let me know if anyone shows WP:THREE is met. Papaursa (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Fails notability as per nom. Lekkha Moun (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Amir Arsalan Heidarzad

Amir Arsalan Heidarzad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails notability, never did anything important in his career. completely unknown. Sports2021 (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete All of his successes were as a pre-teen or teenager, which doesn't show WP notability. He never competed at any European or world championships, either in a youth or adult division. As an adult he never finished in the top 10 of any WKF sanctioned tournament and lost more fights than he won. The sources merely report results and mistakenly refer to the Karate 1 series of events as "world championships" instead of relatively minor events. Papaursa (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. This discussion has had 4 relistings and I still don't see a consensus here. Editors interested in pursuing a Merge can discuss this option on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Benares brass

Benares brass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep I found these sources on Google Books with somewhat good coverage of it [29] [30] [31] Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  The first source only contains trivial coverage and the other two links are to the same source. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Merge with Varanasi as suggested. There’s more context there. This page just doesn’t have significant coverage for a free-standing article. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 13:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

EyeCarePro

EyeCarePro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I'm not seeing much evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH KH-1 (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Medicine, Internet, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: It's been a while since I've looked at this topic. All things considered, before I research the topic any further, perhaps changing it to a stub article would be a better move than deletion. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: There appears to be no coverage outside of WP:TRADES publications. The coverage I could find consists of press releases, sponsored articles, and routine coverage. I'm unable to access sources 2 and 5 but it is very unlikely that they contain enough coverage for WP:CORPDEPTH. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete not provide sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish the company's notability beyond its niche market. The content largely focuses on promotional aspects and lacks significant third-party coverage --Mind-blowing blow (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Basem Al-Shayeb

Basem Al-Shayeb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I believe that the above article is a blatant example of self-promotion, and does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for articles about people. The article heavily references the accolades and accomplishments of this person, seemingly for no other reason than to make them sound impressive, but their listed accomplishments and scientific contributions, though interesting on their own merits, are frankly not very noteworthy against the backdrop of the molecular biology field. They obtained a PhD from UC Berkeley, got their dissertation work published in some high-profile journals, and co-founded a startup- so what? This is not a singular accomplishment; this person did not discover anything that significantly advanced the field, and to the extent that they did, they did not do so alone. There are many other individuals like them out there for which we do not - and should not - have articles.

Furthermore, the article shows every sign of having been written by either the subject themself or someone close to them, with the intent of misrepresenting their accomplishments for self-aggrandizing purposes; to wit:

1. The article as originally written named the subject as the founder of the listed company; they were a co-founder.

2. The article as originally written stated that the subject "led the discovery of" the various listed topics; they were co-first author on two of the papers and a first author on one, and moreover all of this work was evidently done during their PhD, meaning that their graduate advisor technically "led" the work in question.

3. Following my attempts to correct these misstatements, at least two single-purpose accounts were created which proceeded to revert these changes and call into question my motives in editing. I have little doubt one or both of these accounts belongs to the subject of the article.

I am aware that my actions here may be interpreted as implying some ulterior motive, but I assure you I have none: I simply do not look favorably upon people who abuse Wikipedia for self-aggrandizement and self-promotion, especially (as in this case) while being verifiably dishonest, and I am acting accordingly. Xardwen (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Science, Technology, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Wiki analytics indicate that the page has been visited 7130 times, with 13 average visits per day this year. There is significant coverage in reliable third-party sources that are independent of the subject. This suggests some noteworthiness, even if you personally think it undeserved. A quick search also yields further attributions that are not present in the article, including references in two 2024 books: Superconvergence How the Genetics, Biotech, and AI Revolutions Will Transform Our Lives, Work, and World By Jamie Metzl, and The Nobel Prizes 2020 By Karl Grandin.

It appears that the original edits that you mentioned, Xardwen, had deleted relevant news sources. They also included unsourced information, a copyrighted photo and a LinkedIn profile which are all against WP and the edits were addressed by seasoned wikipedians accordingly. It is inappropriate to insert unsourced personal opinions or skepticisms into an article. Your statements also seem to repeatedly violate both WP:AFG Assume Good Faith and WP:PA No Personal Attacks principles with potentially libelous phrases against a public figure?

Considering your edit warring and your statement of being in the same field and in the same city as the subject, can you explain what precisely is your role or personal and financial relation to the subject for COI purposes? You mentioned strong opinions on biographies, but you have not edited any other biography apart this one. In fact, aside pages on erectile dysfunction, this is the top page you have edited. I have no tie to this topic but I hold strongly that Wikipedia is an open-source encyclopedia, not a weapon to undermine persons, nor to push a particular view or to serve a personal vendetta. Pantrail (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your semantic first author comment, you are enforcing a biased personal opinion in contradiction with referenced sources, which state a leading role. A first author in biological sciences is typically the person who led the work on a day-to-day basis and is considered to have made the most substantial contributions to the overall research. In cases of co-first authorship, all co-first authors are considered to have "led" the work. Your edit was inaccurate because you removed this detail in your stated effort to undermine the subject Pantrail (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I would like to preface the following by saying again that I would very much like a senior editor to weigh in on this matter; I believe an experienced and impartial voice is sorely needed here. That being said:

The Wikipedia guidelines on notability state the basic criteria as follows: people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

The secondary sources cited in the article are as follows: The Independent, GEN - Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News, Chemical Engineering News, CRISPR Medicine, Forbes, Arab America, ScienceAlert, IFLScience, SYFY Official Site, TechCrunch, Berkeley News, The Daily Californian, and the Innovative Genomics Institute website (apologies if I have missed any sources). Of these, I would say that only the first four qualify as reliable and intellectually independent of one another and the subject; the subject was listed in Forbes and Arab America's "30 under 30" lists and thus calling these sources "independent" is questionable, and the last three listed sources are affiliated with the institution where the subject did their doctoral research. ScienceAlert is described as controversial and sensationalistic in its Wikipedia article; IFLScience is described as similarly unreliable in the article on its founder; TechCrunch seems fairly reliable based on this analysis by Ad Fontes Media; SYFY is an entertainment company and should not be regarded as reliable when it comes to science reporting, though the subject's mention by them does speak to the extent of their publicity. Indeed, if their work had not been (rather sensationalistically, in some cases) reported by multiple media outlets, and were I not also a researcher in the subject's field, then I would never have heard of them to begin with. I assure you that were I to learn of another researcher in my field with a Wikipedia page that I felt was unwarranted, I would respond exactly as I have here; this was simply the first such example I have come across.

I would like to briefly interject here that I have never stated that I live in the same city as the subject. I am not sure how this misconception arose. I also do not believe that I am obligated to reveal any information about myself beyond what I already have, and I will decline to do so if asked. I have said previously that I have no personal or financial relation to the subject, and that is all I have to say on the matter.

Regarding my other interests as indicated by my edit history, I do not see how this is relevant, but I appreciate you taking the time to look through my prior contributions - I hope that you found them interesting and informative. I cannot help but notice, however, that you have engaged with exactly no articles aside from the one under discussion, and that your account did not exist prior to last month. The same is true for Xerxescience, who has behaved in a more-or-less identical manner. I find this to be extremely suspect.

Regarding your statements about co-first authorship: yes, it is true that co-first authors on a scientific publication are both regarded as having "led" the work described, but regardless, I think it is unfair and misleading not to explicitly give both individuals equal credit in an article that describes their work. Likewise regarding being a co-founder of a company- yes, a co-founder is obviously considered a founder, but listing them simply as "founder" gives an inaccurate impression of their role in the company's history- and, not incidentally, makes the referenced individual sound more impressive, which seems to be a throughline of almost every aspect of this article as it was initially written.

To the extent that my actions have violated Wikipedia's rules: granted, and I aim to do better to avoid running afoul of them in future. I believe that my criticisms and concerns are valid even if I have crossed some lines, or had a bit too much fun at Mr. Al-Shayeb's expense. As I've said above, I would much prefer if someone else was doing this work instead of me- and yet here we are. Xardwen (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to weigh in as an independent observer, as the flag to remove this article caught my eye. I think this article inflates the significance of its subject. There are thousands of people who recently graduated with PhDs from top universities with papers in top journals each year, yet most of these people do not have Wikipedia articles written about themselves. The wording of the first paragraph reads as an advertisement for Amber Bio. The second included information about the individual being a peer reviewer, which is a non-noteworthy duty that nearly every academic scientist fulfills.The studies called out in the third paragraph were made possible only through the hard work of a large team of fellow students, postdocs, and even Prof. Banfield herself. Given the other co-authors' (including Prof. Banfield's) documented roles in the work, I think the term "led" to describe this individual's involvement is disingenuous. Additionally, there are 600 people located in North America who are added to the Forbes "30 Under 30" list annually (30 people across 20 industries); I think Wikipedia call-outs of achievements should be saved for actually meaningful and highly selective awards. I respectfully disagree that the subject of this article represents a "public figure."

I call on Wikipedia leadership to investigate whether the multiple accounts that created and have been editing this article in a disingenuous/advertising way represent "sock puppets" of the same person. If proven to trace back to the same person, then every indicted account should be banned for violating Wikipedia's policies. I think it is in the best interest of the Wikipedia community to stop self promotion and industrial advertisement on its platform. Hemelina (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

This has become quite ridiculous. The content of the page cannot be based on subjective opinion of a user, or terminology they think should be used, but rather the information in the sources. Xardwen has now added the same unsourced information and libelous material multiple times, and subjective synthesis of information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and not your blog. Sources cannot be removed based on your subjective opinion of whether information is important, or how "scientific" a source is, or your biased opinion on noteworthiness of the subject's work. And I say it is biased because Xardwen has already engaged in forum shopping and has accused me of COI, and was thusly already resolved by administrators for being baseless. Meanwhile, he states he in the subject's "field" and the address associated with his account links to the San Francisco metropolitan area, in particular Berkeley. It is abundantly clear that he is somehow linked to the subject and has been obsessively editing the page to harass and malign them, which he has expressed himself "with savage delight". Hemelina is also a brand new account that is likely Xardwen's sockpuppet to further target this page, having just been created to install the same baseless claims and remove information. Xerxescience (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, well. Whoopsies. Regardless, I have no personal or financial connection to the subject, though I don't expect anyone to believe me. I have no idea who User:Hemelina is, either. I have opened a "Request for Comment" on the article's Talk page; I hope that this matter will shortly be moved into the hands of more experienced editors.Xardwen (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Xardwen you have yet again inserted original synthesis of your own subjective opinions into the page, replacing the language that was presented in the source articles, and violating Wikipedia:No original research after multiple warnings. I will also note the interesting presentation of the same typos as User:Hemelina. Xerxescience (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. I'm not sure how to say this politely, but Wikipedia doesn't care about your personal opinion of an article subject and whether or not you believe they "deserve" an article on this project. None of your opinions are based in Wikipedia policy which, along with consensus, is how AFD discussions are closed. In this case, the standards for notability is WP:NACADEMIC and comments should be made in reference to whether or not this subject can be considered notable by this standard or, less likely, WP:GNG. Notability isn't determined based on editors' opinion, much less accusations against your fellow editors, but based on reliable, independent, secondary sources that provide SIGCOV. Some analysis of sources was done here and I thank you for that start. Those who disagree with the nominator's proposal would spend their time more productively by addressing their evaluation of sources or by finding better ones. It is also clear that none of you have participated in an AFD discussion because it helps the closer if you, except for the nominator, cast a bolded "vote" like Keep or Delete or Redirect. Assessing consensus isn't a vote count but some times when editors post long comments, like in this AFD, a bolded vote makes it obvious what outcome you want to happen. Here's hoping we get some participation from AFD regulars who could also offer a source assessment. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep - The article text demonstrates that the subject's research has had a significant impact in his scholarly discipline and beyond.

• Referenced articles state Al-Shayeb's role in having "led" / "helmed" (100+ year old magazine by the American Chemical Society) multiple major publications that have each received significant coverage, and cited by multiple reputable perspective pieces as having major impact or "shift our understanding" of how we think about viruses and other elements https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02975-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-020-0341-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-021-00574-z These discoveries are influential in the fields of microbiology and gene editing, as independently outlined by multiple different editors in the 2021 in science and 2022 in science pages, which highlighted major discoveries of the year. Several of these discoveries also have their own separate Wiki pages. Considering the Wiki reference search shows 3,090 results, and over 100 different news articles, I addressed only some concerns mentioned.
• As referred to above by @Pantrail, Al-shayeb's work on new CRISPR tools is discussed as the cutting edge of genetic engineering technology in the 2020 Nobel Prize lecture with Al-Shayeb credited by name, and in the 2024 book Superconvergence How the Genetics, Biotech, and AI Revolutions Will Transform Our Lives, Work, and World By Jamie Metzl. To say "this person did not discover anything that significantly advanced the field, and to the extent that they did, they did not do so alone" is a fallacious and subjective view of science. By that standard, nobody qualifies since nobody does science alone. The article and sources state that he led the work, not that he or any scientist did it alone.
• Prestigious journals like the Nature Portfolio are known for their rigorous standards, only accepting "ground-breaking" research. These journals presumably similarly carefully select reviewers who are leading experts, and reviewing for said journals is a testament to the subject's significant authority and extensive record of impactful research in their discipline.

The person has also had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

• The published work is in development by major companies demonstrating real-world impact beyond academia. The work on RNA-guided therapies highlights how the research has translated directly into medical innovation by multiple pharmaceutical companies. Recognition from mainstream sources like Forbes Magazine (from which there are at least 5 different articles on subject) and other outlets also indicates broad public and professional acknowledgment of his influence beyond the academic realm. This shows substantial impact in both the academic sphere and the wider industry. The nominator claimed Al-Shayeb has affiliation with the editorial board of Forbes Magazine or the Daily Californian multiple times now and suggested that it diminishes their credibility, but provided no evidence, or that this presumed affiliation led to the coverage. He also conveniently dismissed the outlets or sources curated by industry experts such as GEN, c&en, CRISPR Medicine, Nature Magazine News, Science Magazine News, Futurism (credibility), LiveScience (rated GREEN for its credibility and trustworthiness by NewsGuard) or the work in TechCrunch, The Independent that corroborate the same reporting that the nominator claimed to be "non-credible or sensationalistic"

Xerxescience (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

As the nominator, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to "vote" or not, but I didn't see anything on the AfD guidelines page prohibiting me from doing so, thus:

Delete -

Wikipedia's criteria for notability regarding articles about academics are listed as follows:

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

First of all, "significant impact" seems highly subjective, but that aside: what counts as a "significant impact" here, and does this person's research qualify? They were first author on a paper describing unusual archaeal extrachromosomal DNA elements; this is interesting, but speaking as a fellow microbiologist, it does not strike me as a very impactful discovery, but more of a niche curiosity. Another listed publication (I thought they were listed as co-first author, but I seem to have been mistaken? Need to double-check) describes some very small virus-derived CRISPR-associated genome-editing proteins; again, this is interesting, but did this really leave a lasting impression on the field? The CRISPR field seems to move quite fast, and my understanding is that other, smaller gene-editing proteins (e.g. TnpB) have been discovered since; moreover it's not clear to me that the proteins discovered by Al-Shayeb et al. were that transformative in terms of their applications, although this may just be my ignorance showing. Finally, the third paper listed (on which Al-Shayeb was co-first author) describes some of the largest known phages at the time; again, interesting, but is this really an impactful find? Was this a major addition to our understanding of microbiology, or is it just a neat addition to the list of already known large phages?

1. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

Has this person received a highly prestigious academic award at a national or international level? According to the article, they were nominated for the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship; the NSF website states that they plan to issue 2,300 GRFs this fiscal year. Does this qualify as a "prestigious award at a national level"? "Prestigious" is obviously subjective, but I was under the impression that this referred to something closer to the level of, say, the Pulitzer Prize for journalism, of which twenty-four are issued each year. As for their other listed accolades, being on the Forbes/Arab America 30 Under 30 lists does not constitute an academic award, and thus does not apply here.

1. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics).

I do not believe any of these apply here.

1. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

I do not believe this applies here.

1. The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.

Does not apply here.

1. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

Does not apply here.

1. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

I do not believe this applies here.

1. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

Does not apply here.

It seems like the only argument for keeping this article is that their research is "significantly impactful"; as I've said above, I believe this assessment to be highly subjective, but I personally do not feel that their contributions meet this threshold. At best, these seem like contributions that should be mentioned in the articles for Archaea, CRISPR-Cas genome editing, and Bacteriophages (as they already are); were any of these discoveries so ground-breaking that their (in some cases, co-) discoverer merits their own page?Xardwen (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete because the research is not "significantly impactful" by Wikipedia's criteria. The individual behind the now-deleted accounts @Xerxescience and @Pantrail worded the content of the article to sound more impactful than it actually is. For example, why is it that Mr. Al-Shayeb "led" the work (as written in the Wikipedia article in question) that he co-first-authored with others while being supervised by his graduate school advisors, yet Mr. Al-Shayeb "supervised" the work (again, as the now-banned accounts wrote in the Wikipedia article in question) that was first-authored by another individual? For example, Mr. Al-Shayeb's co-founder and CEO, Dr. Jacob Borrajo, is first author on the most recent manuscript mentioned in the Wikipedia article in question and is also continuing to move the work forward as a current executive of Amber Bio (apparently without Mr. Al-Shayeb's "supervision"). In this example, it is clear to anyone in the field that Dr. Borrajo made the most substantial contributions to this work that is one of the Mr. Al-Shayeb's key accomplishments, yet Dr. Borrajo does not have a Wikipedia page. The same could be said for some of the other co-first authors and supervisors on the studies listed on Mr. Al-Shayeb's Wikipedia page.

If one were to argue that Mr. Al-Shayeb somehow meets the WP:NACADEMIC standards, then all 2000-3000 people issued an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship each year should have a Wikipedia page. Forbes 30 under 30 is not an academic award and uses irrelevant metrics such as how much wealth someone has as key criteria for selection, but if it were, then do we give all 600 people recognized with the Forbes 30 under 30 award each a Wikipedia page? And the tens of thousands of people who graduate with PhDs from prestigious universities and contribute work to renowned scientific journals; do we give all of them a Wikipedia page? No, because the line must be drawn somewhere. In this case, Mr. Al-Shayeb clearly falls on the side of the line that does not warrant this page to exist. Hemelina (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

•  Note: To the closer: Please treat the now-blocked accounts Pantrail and Xerxescience as being the same person for the purpose of determining a consensus. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  Delete.

  I think this article should be deleted because the subject clearly does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. The subject is not listed on any academic institution's website as being currently affiliated. There is no publicly available evidence that the subject has ever held an independent position at any academic institution that wasn't under the direct supervision of other faculty members. The subject is presented on the article as a "biotech executive", yet the subject is not currently listed as an executive on any current company's website. Disturbingly, two now-blocked accounts who turned out to be the same person, @Pantrail and @Xerxescience, repeatedly deleted verifiably true and well-cited edits made by multiple independent contributors. I will remind the individual behind these accounts that information cannot be libelous or defamatory if it is true. The individual behind these accounts, who I deduce is either the subject of this article or financially tied to the subject of this article, also reverted the article to present misleading information that promoted the financial interests of the article's subject. Wikipedia is not the place to advance individual financial interests. Please delete. Hemelina (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hemelina, first, you can only cast one bolded "vote" so I have struck your duplicate vote. Secondly, you have only been editing a week and have made a total of 12 edits, most of them to this article and AFD. You have no other global contributions with this account so I'm assuming you typically edit with a different account since you seem to have the Wikipedia jargon down pat. So, at least for me, your opinion carries less weight. I'd still like to hear from some "uninvolved" editors as all participants seem to have some sort of COI with this subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We really need some uninvolved and non-sock editors to review this article and its sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete

• Note, this guy is a predoc fellow as per Google Scholar, which by definition means WP:NACADEMIC almost certainly does not apply. His H-Index is extremely high for a pre-doc, as per google scholar. [32], so maybe WP:NACADEMIC could apply in the future, but it is nowhere near high enough to apply right now.
• Much of the sourcing is not independent or reliable or only mentions the subject in passing. Much of the sourcing that talks about his start up seems like promotional PR that goes along with any business.
• The current writing on the article is strained and tortuous. At one point, there is a mention that Shayeb’s work is cited by a Nobel Laureate? I’d half-argue for WP:TNT even if the subject was notable enough.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

also… what the heck happened that editors have a personal vendetta against a pre-doc scientist? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Strong delete. The only content in this article which could form a basis for notability is scientific output, within WP:NPROF. With an h-factor of 20, 3000 total citations and no senior awards he does not come close to any of the qualifications. This is an AfD where the case for delete is exceedingly strong, one of the strongest NPROF I have seen, but a lot of "noise" has been generated including many inappropriate personal attacks. Fortunately experienced editors/reviewers ignore inappropriate comments. For reference, I have no connection with anything here, but have done a fair bit of WP work. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Comments on sources (as requested). As mentioned above he does not qualify under WP:NPROF by a long distance. The points made in the article about the startup receiving funding count towards whether Amber Bio is notable enough to merit a page. However, they do not count towards his WP:GN, just as a notable book does not necessarily make the author notable. As some specifics on the sources:

  1. ORCID was duplicated (cleaned)
  2. Article contains significant WP:MILL for an academic, such as being a peer reviewer -- these should be deleted as irrelevant.
  3. Many authors in the papers. While not as large as HEP, this has to be considered for impact.
  4. Citing a Nobel Prize presentation is not what I would consider to be a strong source, particularly as the article comes from his supervisor -- WP:PEACOCK.
  5. Forbes cite on paper in Nature was invalid, removed
  6. Claim that genome editing system reported in Science Magazine was unsourced, deleted
  7. Claim of methane-oxidizing archaea reported in Nature is not verified, deleted
  8. Claim that he "supervised research" is not validated by source, which states "co-supervised". Changed
  9. Claim that he was listed as an "All-Star Alumni for his scientific contributions" not verified, so "for his scientific contributions removed".

  Ldm1954 (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Further comments on sources.

  1. The article claims that he coined the term "Borg's", but C&EN says that came from Jillian Banfield’s son. I trust C&EN.

  There certainly are (were) substantial liberties taken with the sources. They do provide coverage, but I do not see anything in the sources which prove sufficient peer recognition for him. Several might support the startup, but that is out of context here. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete and create protect per WP:SIGCOV, WP:PROF, WP:MILL, and WP:NOTRESUME. There’s clearly a lack of a minimum of three articles or books with significant coverage about this person in reliable and independent sources; I count precisely zero. He’s not a named professor or similar academic. His $26 million startup is one of dozens in the world today working on CRISPR. I took a graduate course online in summer 2021 where AP Biology teachers were taught how to use the technology (the only reason I didn’t use it was because I registered at too late to do the lab portion of the class, but I still earned an A for my final project). So it’s nothing special. Finally, in 2024, everyone knows that Wikipedia doesn’t exist to help people with publicity; we are an encyclopedia. Many of our readers don’t grok how we handle notability, but even 14 year olds understand that we have standards; to claim otherwise is to deny one’s own agency in the age of Internet 2.0. We are a charity, and not just a social media platform. Bearian (talk) 03:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Tomasz Krezymon

Tomasz Krezymon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable musician and professor fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:MUSICIAN. This article is one of a series of promotional articles (a walled garden of sorts) surrounding the so-called Empathism "movement" and the poet Menotti Lerro (who "invented" Empathism and wrote it's manifesto), and the "award" given to the people who adhere to Empathism. Other articles of questionable notability are the other "members" as well as Lerro's Cilento International Poetry Prize and others. Two SPA's are creating numerous articles that all connect back to Lerro (hence the "walled garden"), whose article on Italian Wikipedia has been deleted for lack of notability. The whole group of articles are WP:PROMO. Netherzone (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Bands and musicians, and Music. Netherzone (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Not all musicians are notable, no indication he meets NBIO and such. Not notable as written

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. As per Netherzone. Axad12 (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Black Fragility

Black Fragility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article covers a definition of a term used by one person, it does not appear to be a broader subject of academic discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. This term doesn't appear exclusive to Loury. McWhorter uses it (here, here), and Steele uses it in a very different context. Regardless, I'm not finding coverage of the concept itself, to the extent it exists, or evidence that it's a unified concept among the scholars who have deployed it. I also don't see an appropriate redirect to White fragility since the article does not currently use the term in discussing McWhorter's criticism of DiAngelo. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

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 02:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. The term has been the subject of academic papers 1 2, at least one book written by a social scientist 3, and some articles like this one 4. Cortador (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Of Cortador's sources, the first two papers (by Steele) are actually the same paper published in two different venues (one a journal, one a book chapter, still the same article). Apart from the headline, the term "black fragility" does not appear once in the paper's text. The book written by Carter, the "social scientist," is self-published. (The author appears to be a corporate trainer/consultant.) The article by Gobodo-Madikizela has a single reference in it to "black fragility": "What concerns me is the trap of black fragility, when the reaction to the behaviour of racists is interpreted as if the particular racist actually is in a position of power in relation to the person who is the target of the racist slur." Thus, Steele and Gobodo-Madizkizela do not constitute WP:SIGCOV and Carter's work is not a reliable source under WP:SPS. Thus, none of these sources contribute to a WP:GNG pass for this concept. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - per Cortador. KatoKungLee (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - Not even close. First of all, the article is a wild failure of WP:NFCC, comprising mostly a three-paragraph quote (!). This is not the Manhattan Institute website, so we should not be hosting entire articles based nothing on that think tank's publication. Even if there were all the sources in the world about this subject, it's still a complete WP:TNT case. But it's also not notable, as far as I can tell. As per Dclemens1971's analysis above, we have exactly one independent reliable source. The question is where to redirect it. I'd recommend redirecting to White Fragility and adding a line there about some critics using "black fragility" (which would, of course, mean omitting most of the sourcing identified in favor of those which explicitly talk about DiAngelo). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. With the source review, I'm not convinced this is a Keep but we do need consensus on the outcome and whether or not a Redirect is appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete with no redirect – Dclemens1971 shows this term has extremely minor usage and does not appear to constitute a coherent and consistent idea between the few people who use it. It's simply a rhetorical device for a snappy headline in reference to "white fragility." Since it doesn't exist as an independent idea it shouldn't deserve even passing mention elsewhere in the encyclopedia, so should not be redirected. Should be WP:TNT for the massive copyvio quote. Dan • ✉ 20:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Brazil women's national softball team. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Brazil women's national under-18 softball team

Brazil women's national under-18 softball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject lacks the needed coverage from reliable secondary sources to meet the WP:NORG/WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and Brazil. Let'srun (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete – There is no Brazil women's under-18 team, only under-20 and under-17. Svartner (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has been to AFD before as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore women's junior national softball team so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

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

• Redirect to Brazil women's national softball team, which now has some information about the junior women's team, including the fact that they were ranked 8th in the world as of April 2024, following the V Pan American Championship for Women U-18 where they came in 4th. (Then keep improving the target article as well.) Cielquiparle (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete All the sources are primary. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

JEDA Technologies

JEDA Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable company, doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Tule-hog (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tule-hog (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP. Although I found lots of coverage, all of it is in WP:TRADES publications. Practically all of the coverage is routine product announcements. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. The source analysis is pretty convincing that, given the sources that have been located as of today, do not help establish notability as Wikipedia judges it. Perhaps at a future date this might change but if you want to work on a better article, please do so in Draft space and submit it to WP:AFC for review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Dale Wood (William Lawrence Hansen)

Dale Wood (William Lawrence Hansen) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There are no secondary sources that provide information about this person; the entire article is based on primary sources and the article itself admits that little is known outside of government copyright documentation. As a result of the lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, the subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Music. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. As Bill Hansen, he is in the credits as an editor for a variety of television programs and related media that may become Wikipedia articles in the future. Most of all, he has composed music with a variety of notable composers. The other references can likely be found, as requested in the first banner. UPDATE: I have improved the article in terms of references and content. (9/28/24) Starlighsky

Future notability is not a consideration at AfD. And his notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from other composers he may have worked with, or from projects he may have worked on that may (or more likely may not) be notable. What we need is reliable, secondary sources. Can you provide those?? Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I will do my best to find those. Starlighsky (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

There is an abundance of information on ASCAP of his music as well as who performed his music. However, it is challenging to understand.

ACE Repertory (ascap.com) Starlighsky (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

ASCAP is a primary source. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Film, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. In 2024, everyone knows that we don’t have biographies on every single person who ever lived and worked in the movies or on TV. We are not, nor ever been, a directory of everyone in “The Business” like ASCAP or IMDB. I hope everyone understands why we strive to be more reliable. This page has to be deleted because there’s not enough information about the person, other than a bare minimum of what he edited. According to our policy: “Biography articles should only be created for people with some sort of verifiable notability. A good measure of notability is whether someone has been featured in multiple, independent, reliable sources.” Sorry. Bearian (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  I do want to add that it is the biography of an editor who went by a pseudonym to write music with notable songwriters.  Starlighsky (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  The more I research this, the more it seems like the television and film projects could be valuable resources for the Wikipedia community:

  As William Lawrence Hansen:

  Al Jolson's Old-Time Minstrel Show 1952

  William Lawrence Hansen

  (Compilation: songs and text)

  BMI Television Sketchbook Sketches (1951)

  William Lawrence Hansen

  & Henry M. Katzberg

  19 Celebrated Baritone Solos (1950)

  William Lawrence Hansen

  (Compilation)

  Songs from the film Bambi (1951)

  Edited by Bill Hansen Starlighsky (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need reliable sources to verify notability, not editors' opinions that a subject is important. You have a few more days to find those sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I have added in the article's talk page brief questions about how or if I cite certain references. Starlighsky (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Going to do a quick assessment of the sources currently in the article, including recent additions by Starlighsky.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Dclemens1971

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
ASCAP Biographical Dictionary of Composers, Authors and Publishers (not linked but I found it at https://archive.org/details/ascapbiographica00ameri/mode/2up?q=hansen)			A single-paragraph thumbnail biographical sketch in a nearly 600-page biographical directory. Reliable for factual details but does not contribute to WP:GNG.	✘ No
https://archive.org/details/musicalakasassum0000dron/page/164/mode/2up?q=hansen			A single line that confirms Dale Wood is a pseudonym for Bill Hansen but says nothing more.	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/search/results/?iid=3825&keyword=(Dreaming+of+My)+Indiana+Sweetheart	?	?	? It's a list of 200,000+ search results, no idea what is being linked here	? Unknown
https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt3m3nf1xs/	?	?	A reference guide to a primary source collection. Wood/Hansen does not come up in searches	✘ No
https://search.worldcat.org/title/498933149; https://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/i/indiana2.html; numerous references to U.S. copyright filings	A set of references to primary sources (Hansen's songs and their copyright filings) that are ineligible to contribute to notability.			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

All in all, we have no WP:SIGCOV qualifying toward WP:GNG. None of his songs appear notable either so we have no pass on WP:NMUSIC. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I can clarify references. The newspaper citation was a list of newspaper mentioning the song "Dreaming of My Girl in Indiana", which was a song that had extensive press coverage when it was released. That song is notable. I will keep working on it. Starlighsky (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Yang Song-guk

Yang Song-guk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment: There's some coverage on page 18 of this North Korean book [33] and in this book [34]. Is that enough for sigcov? Should be notable as the captain of the squad. Oaktree b (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - "Some coverage" is now routine match coverage in a book jam packed with lies from a country with a wholly unreliable media. The other book is just a sentence. Dratify shouldn't be an option as it is unlikely sigcov will emerge in the future. Dougal18 (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
  • The film I mentioned above contains significant coverage (as well as a scene that went something like: "Every North Korean from his generation recognizes his face. Every younger North Korean recognizes the name 'Yang Song Guk, hero of the eighth World Cup'"). In addition, there's also another scene with a player showing a book full of newspaper clippings for the players from the Cup – so its clear they were well-covered (and the suggestion that everything from North Korean is wholly unusable is ridiculous – it should be used with caution, yes, but not outright banned). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well, it's biased out the wazoo, but we have confirmation (from the film) it's not made up. It's a source, that's all. Oaktree b (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - Per users above. Clealry significant figure in North Korean football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 00:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Kim Jong-min (footballer, born 1947)

Kim Jong-min (footballer, born 1947) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete also lack of WP:SIGCOV. Xegma(talk) 17:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - played at the Olympics and managed the national team, clearly notable - needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 20:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep and Improve per GiantSnowman. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 18:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reminding participants that WP:GNG has not been addressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep and improve as per above

Lâm (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: as per GiantSnowman. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 13:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per GiantSnowman has played in the Olympics and managed the national team.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Clear consensus to Keep but it's not clear that sources verify content and establish GNG. This is the second relisting comment on this subject so if they do, please state that rather than give a "per" statement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: I'm failing to see the notability here. The references provided are just profiles and clearly doesn't have any SIGCOV. I'm not convinced of the established notability comment per GiantSnowman. Taking part in Olympics doesn't warranty any notability, if there aren't any sources backing it up. My search results also turned out nil and clearly no SIGCOV or GNG met. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

After reading through BF11's comment, it's evidence some notability might be present in the North Korean sources. I'm okay with a draftify too. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• This is clearly one of the examples were requiring strict SIGCOV compliance is patently absurd. Where on earth are we supposed to go to find North Korean newspaper archives? I can only note that in a scene in the film The Game of Their Lives (regarding the 1966 North Korean team), one North Korean player showed a book full of newspaper headlines for the top players with the national team – so it is obvious that the sport was very well-covered at the time and I don't see why a few years later would have been any different. Another way to notability would be WP:ANYBIO if Kim received any of the top honors in North Korea, which would be either Merited Athlete or People's Athlete. Looking up his name (김정민) in relation to the title Merited Athlete (공훈체육인) I get results including a piece from the Minju Choson stating in the preview "화원1동에 입사한 만경대구역상하수도관리소의 김정민，량은향 로동자부부 ... 공훈체육인칭호가 수여되였다． 로력훈장이 1명에게，국기훈장 제2급이 18명 . [Kim Jong-min and Ryang-hyang, workers of the Mangyongdae District Waterworks Management Office in Hwawon 1-dong, were awarded the title of Meritorious Sportsman.]" – I have a strong feeling this was him (esp. given that we have no other North Korean 'Kim Jong-min's) but I receive warning messages when entering the site so I can't look further. Searching his name in relation to the 'Mangyondae District Waterworks Management Office' ("입사한 만경대구역상하수도관리소" "김정민") brings up another piece from the Rodong Sinmun further discussing 'Kim Jong-min and Ryang-hyang' ("화원1동에 입사한 만경대구역상하수도관리소의 김정민, 량은향 로동자부부는 현대적인 살림집을 받아안고보니 우리 원수님의 은덕이 너무도 크고 ... [Kim Jong-min and Ryang-hyang, workers of the Mangyongdae District Waterworks Management Office in Hwawon 1-dong, received a modern house and realized that the grace of our Marshal was so great...]") but likewise I cannot access it further. IMO I'd like to keep this given how accomplished he is and how ridiculous it is to find North Korean newspaper sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Draftify: I agree with BeanieFan11's argument - proving WP:GNG for a North Korean would be extremely difficult. At the same time, the article gives very little information about the subject and needs improving. It makes sense to draftify and find sources to add to it so that it can be more useful to readers.DesiMoore (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I'd support that outcome and would expand it when I get the chance. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Draftify – Per above. Svartner (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. It appears that the sources brought up in this discussion address the nominator's concerns. I hope they can be added to the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

CPC and World Political Parties Summit

CPC and World Political Parties Summit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This one-off video conference fails WP:EVENTCRITERIA. No WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and no indication of WP:LASTING effect whatsoever. Amigao (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep. The ideas of "No continued coverage" or "no lasting effect" is readily shown to be wrong by the second source, a 2023 academic book discussing the topic over multiple pages. In addition, we currently have multi-language coverage. "Video conference" should not suggest unimportance given the scope and period - event included 500 political parties and 10,000 individual representatives and was conducted in 2021 when China was still quite protective on COVID19 matters. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: I'm not sure how notable the book source cited is, as it's not an online reference. I can bring up news coverage of the event in 2021. Sourcing is largely in academic journals, into 2023 at least [35], where it's discussed as part of China's larger influence in the world. Oaktree b (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for spotting. We should incorporate more journal articles.

  Current book academic source I referred to is from the notable Suisheng Zhao and published by Stanford University Press JArthur1984 (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. So, participants, do you believe the existing sources are sufficient for establishing GNG?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes for me, and I also incorporated the 2023 academic source identified by Oaktree b's. JArthur1984 (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Skycoach

Skycoach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotional, fails WP:NCORP. Sources are reprints of press releases. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete WP:BEFORE doesn't show any third party coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The article was written entirely from sources. Sources talk about news about the platform's activities, it is usually. All the facts that are in the article find confirmation in open independent sources. Jane230 (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete – can't find any independent and secondary sources. The sources in the current version of the article are in fact one and the same source, a press release reprinted in four different places, with two of them being slightly rewritten but it's still the same source. --bonadea contributions talk 11:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

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