User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 11:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC).

AfD Time to close Votes Size (bytes) Relists Score
Şifa University 20 days ago 1 8152 0 1769.68
People's Republic of China's civilian motor vehicle license plates 20 days ago 3 4281 0 1676.07
Uşşaki 20 days ago 2 5508 0 1671.01
Kaoli Isshiki 18 days ago 3 21996 0 1490.01
Ana Coimbra 18 days ago 3 8517 0 1462.64
Yashar Vafaei Mamaghani 14 days ago 3 6757 0 1231.29
DXKS-FM (Cagayan de Oro) 11 days ago 0 3129 0 1223.29
Commotion Ltd v Rutty 11 days ago 1 4992 0 1180.52
Hinapia 13 days ago 2 5379 0 1179.1
National selections for the Eurovision Song Contest 13 days ago 3 13811 0 1147.59
Freenet (Central Asia) 14 days ago 4 5220 0 1144.56
Karak Oil Refinery 10 days ago 0 2947 0 1129.21
Mount Alvernia High School (Jamaica) 13 days ago 3 5708 0 1126.83
Mee Massa (TV series) 12 days ago 3 4465 0 1120.23
Pocket FM (platform) 13 days ago 3 8930 0 1112.9
Zoé Kézako 12 days ago 2 4224 0 1103.5
Kurdistan Islamic Relations Movement 9 days ago 0 4982 0 1089.63
Janicke Askevold 9 days ago 1 4574 0 1028.59
Desserts (film) 10 days ago 2 15943 0 990.61
Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International (2nd nomination) 11 days ago 3 9051 0 972.29
Sistani of Golestan 8 days ago 1 3932 0 962.54
1939–40 Maltese FA Trophy 11 days ago 4 7384 0 958.9
Waiting for Woody 10 days ago 3 9525 0 954.06
List of Storm Prediction Center meso-gamma mesoscale discussions (2nd nomination) 8 days ago 1 19128 0 923.2
Ireland–Mali relations 10 days ago 4 8721 0 889.52

Şifa University

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

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

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

  • Draftify: I found some sources (which appear to be secondary) see 1, 2 and 3. The article needs some improvement in general, but I don't think it should be deleted. SirBrahms (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
    The page is 12 years old and has had no active editing. Draftify looks like backdoor deletion in this case. But the sources you have found are interesting. The first is a primary source: a Ph.D. thesis. Despite being a primary source, it could contain secondary information about the university, and provide something to write an article from, so I would not rule it out just for being apparently primary. The second source is a listing. That is not SIGCOV, definitely not at CORPDEPTH, and independence is questionable. The third source is the most important though. That tells us that the university was seized and closed down in 2016 following a failed military coup (it was an asset of those involved). The source is primary in that it is a news report, but presents a bit of a quandary. It shows that, on the one hand, the university no longer exists and only existed for six years. Based on that, it is unlikely this ever reached notability. On the other hand, the very event that caused it to close would appear to make something notable. I am leaning towards merge to somewhere, if there is a suitable target regarding the coup. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for your comments! It may be viable to merge it into Purges in Turkey following the 2016 Turkish coup attempt (especially considering it hasn't had any active editing in so long (a thing I regrettably forgot to check)). Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
    I'd move to merge if it made sense. How would that look though? There were 15 universities closed in the purge, and none are currently named. Should they be listed? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
    I'd say yes. I'm imagining something like this:
    • University one, Place, Exact reason for closure (if applicable)
    • etc.
    What do you think? Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
    If we have the exact reason for each, sure. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - Further to my above comment, according to this page Purges in Turkey following the 2016 Turkish coup attempt, this was one of 15 universities shut down in the purges following the coup. It seems undue to add this one to that page. Yet if it is not even notable for a mention there, it is not notable for a page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
    That is not a reason to delete - the other universities and the Military Academy and Naval Academy are not mentioned there but are in List of educational institutions closed in the 2016 Turkish purges. If the only coverage was when it was closed down, it can be redirected to the list. Peter James (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

People's Republic of China's civilian motor vehicle license plates

[edit]
People's Republic of China's civilian motor vehicle license plates (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)

Odd fork of Vehicle registration plates of China. Another editor redirected it there, but was reverted with the (dubious, in my opinion) reason that "zh wiki has two separate articles". Most of the content here duplicates Vehicle registration plates of China and I can find no compelling reason to keep a fork. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete Some contents are duplicated with Vehicle registration plates of China. Shwangtianyuan Defeat the virus together 14:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Merge or Redirect to retain the functionality of the language switcher from zh.wp. The xtools reports for the zh articles are pretty interesting: the vehicle registration plates article is slightly older, but the civilian vehicle registration plates article has fifteen times as many inlinks and sees three times as much traffic. Both have similar numbers of edits and distinct editors. This isn't an argument for or against any course of action here, but the fork is somewhat mystifying. Folly Mox (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 November 6 following a previous close of "redirect".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Vehicle registration plates of China. Technically a merge is okay, but the overlap here is massive, making a merge unnecessary. For instance, most of the "civilian" article consists of the list of prefixes by province, which is already included in its entirety in the main article. I consider the "civilian" article a content fork and it should not be kept. Toadspike [Talk] 08:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Massive overlap. This is a plausible topic, but it is untenable with this cross-article organizational issue. Redirecting does not remove significant content. The article can be restored when editors decide to treat this is a proper spinoff, when they figure out what to put where and how to summarize what was left at the parent article. The current state of things is not helpful to readers.—Alalch E. 15:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Uşşaki

[edit]
Uşşaki (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 uncited for years but hard to find sources as apparently not the same as https://tr.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=U%C5%9F%C5%9Faki_Tarikat%C4%B1 The source on the Turkish article seems like it might be a wiki or somesuch so perhaps not reliable? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Islam, Iraq, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: I see various books in English covering this significantly; also two reliable references on the corresponding article in French. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
    @Mushy Yank What books in English please? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
    Added some to the page.
    By the way, you have currently opened 27 Afds regarding Turkey-related articles. It is an extremely (and in my view exceedingly) high number for one nominator, especially concerning one topic, and it happens to be very challenging for interested users to find sources and even !vote. I understand you take to Afds pages that are unsourced but, precisely, it takes a lot of time to find sources. At the very least, I am inviting you to kindly slow down your nominations; personally, I would even suggest that you stop further nominations until the present ones are closed. Thank you very much. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Kaoli Isshiki

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I looked as promised, don't know yet. Solo appearance at the BBC Proms is at least something. I added some external links to check out. Her repertoire seems off the beaten track, plenty contemporary, and we might want to support that. I found the ref from which most of the article was taken and reworded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
    adding: the French article has 24 references. I guess that some are those I also found (now in external links). Will look closer tomorrow, but someone knowing French might be more more successful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
    Keep: I haven't looked at those yet, but the English article is now referenced. For me, she is notable enough, having made interesting recordings, with notable ensembles and conductors, and only favourable reviews. She is not a diva-type soprano: that should not be a reason to delete. The article serves many links to music that is not normally in focus, both Baroque as contemporary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
    For the French sources, I need help to not misread the French:
    1. [2] This Le Monde article says that she won a prize.
    2. [3] This is a more detailed review of her singing (not just "outstanding").
    3. [4] recital
    4. [5] recording --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
    @Gerda Arendt I don't think this in-depth enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. The last source is selling her CD and is not independent or significant coverage. The prod-s.com website also lacks independence. The Le Monde article spends half a sentence on her, and is a smaller not all that notable prize. The main prize went to another performer, Richard Rittelman, who deservedly is the focus of that article. Only the anaclase.com source approaches significant coverage (and honestly it isn't long enough to be considered in-depth as it devotes less than a paragraph of the article to her performance). Laurent Cuniot is the main subject of that article not Isshiki. There's not enough here to pass WP:NSINGER or WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
    Is Wikipedia only for those who win first prize? - This is a performer of several unusual recordings, and performances in Paris, Brussels, Proms, ... - Aldeburgh could be added. - Deborah Sasson was kept, but achieved less in the music world. She knew how to attract the press, however. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt This has nothing to do with the evaluating the worth of prize winners, but evaluating the quality of coverage of Kaoli Isshiki in sources. A half sentence of text is not significant coverage, and if the award were significant we would expect more coverage in independent media or academic publications. We can only build articles based on our notability guidelines which requires that we support articles with extant sources that contain significant coverage. That does mean that what journalists and academics choose to pay attention to directly impacts the types of articles we can create because we can't engage in WP:Original Research. That is both a limitation and a strength of writing on wikipedia. The fact that you have yet to locate any sources directly about Isshiki where she is the primary subject indicates that she isn't notable for wikipedia's purposes. This indicates that a journalist or an academic researcher needs to do some work before we can have an article and it is WP:TOOSOON for wikipedia to write on this person.4meter4 (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't believe that our coverage should depend on one reviewer's or academic's personal attention or lack of that, when her contributions to music are facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Then fundamentally you have missed the point of wikipedia's core policies at WP:No original research, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:SIGCOV. We can't build articles largely verified to primary and non-independent sources. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Informations about concerts and recordings are facts, not original research. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
See WP:PSTS which states, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. The issue here is that there is not enough secondary coverage of her performances and recordings to establish the notability of those performances and recordings, and to make sure the "facts" are presented in an encyclopedic and neutral manner. Building an article from primarily primary materials and sources closely connected to the subject does not match the policy language at PSTS. At this point we have found zero secondary or tertiary sources with significant coverage. That makes the topic both not notable, and any article built from the current sources in evidence a violation of PSTS policy on the no original research page. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
(Please educate me on my talk, not here. - Edit conflict, response only to the beginning of the comment above.) I didn't write this article, and probably would not have created it. But now it's there. I don't think we need "research" to agree that The Proms are notable, and that singing all of Monteverdi's Vespers (not just solos) is an admirable feat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Quoting policy language here isn't about educating you Gerda (although if it does that is a bonus). It's relevant policy language to the discussion. Providing textual evidence for an WP:AFD argument is what we are supposed to do at an AFD for the benefit of all participants. I have provided a detailed source analysis below, showing how none of the references constitute independent significant coverage as required by WP:Notability.`4meter4 (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Liz, could you please notify relevant projects, such as Opera and Women (in Music, in Red), - Song is not relevant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
Le Monde Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Non-notable award that receives only a half sentence of coverage in the article. The article is mainly about another person who won a different award which is notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Anaclase.com review Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Article is primarily a review of Laurent Cuniot and the TM+ ensemble at the Maison de la musique. Isshiki is only mentioned in passing, and the paragraph she is in is primarily not about her performance but about the song cycle by Jonathan Harvey. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
recital at prod-s.com Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN The PROD-S company is the production company which produced the recital concert by Ishki. As they are a production team directly connected to the recital, and promote their events on their website this lacks both independence and significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
recording Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Vendor selling Isshiki's CD. Does nothing but verify a recording exists. It does not provide any information on the recording, and the website also lacks independence as it is selling a product featuring the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
KAOLI ISSHIKI at ruhrtriennale.de Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Artist bio at the website of Festival der Kunste which employed the singer. These bios are usually written by the subject or their paid talent management agency. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Ensemble William Byrd Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Isshiki is listed as one of four sopranos in a chamber choir on the website of the choir itself. This is either neither independent or significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
KAOLI ISSHIKI at ludusmodalis.com Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Artist bio at the website of the Ludus Modalis website which employs the singer. These bios are usually written by the subject or their paid talent management agency. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Review at musica-dei-donum.org Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Review from a WP:SELFPUBLISHED non-notable blog. Not a reliable source. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Philharmonie de Paris Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Performance archive of the Philharmonie de Paris. Verifies she performed with the orchestra in a primary source, but this is neither significant or independent. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
BBC Proms Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Performance archive of the BBC proms. Verifies she performed with the BBC proms in a primary source, but this is neither significant or independent. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Voce.de Red XN Question? Red XN Red XN Red XN Voce.de is a WP:SELFPUBLISHED personal website of Hans-Josef Kasper. Not reliable. May or may not be independent. No way to tell with a self-published source. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Brusseks Philharmonic Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Website of the Brussels Philharmonic. It's the orchestra's performance archive and is both a primary source and lacks independence from the subject as the orchestra employed her. Can be used to verify the performance but is not usable towards proving notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Res Musica review Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN This is an independent secondary source, but Isshiki's performance is only given a half sentence of attention. It is not in-depth enough to be considered significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
conservatoire-orchestre.caen.fr/ Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN This is an advertisement with ticket sale pricing and links for purchasing. It is not a review, not independent, and not significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
musicweb-international.com Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN This is an independent review of album on which Isshiki performs on a couple songs as a guest artist. However, her performance was not reviewed at all by the reviewer who did not mention her at all in the review. She is only listed as a performer on the couple songs to which she contributed. Without any text reviewing her work, this is not in-depth coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
French Anthologies Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN This is an independent review in a reliable secondary source. However, the review of Isshiki's performance is only a half sentence long. It's not in-depth enough to constitute significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
www.recordsinternational.com Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN This is the website of a record label selling one its albums. Not independent nor significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Total qualifying sources 0
There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
I am travelling, and busy with other subjects, sorry for a late reply. Thank you for diligent analysis of sources, 4meter4. My issue is that it sees every item only on its own, not in context.
Of course there are, in general, biographies around that were written by the person in question or by a publicity specialist, but in this case I see the things mentioned there (studies in Europe, award, performances, recordings) also supported by trustworthy other references. I also don't see any items in the biography (which is repeated by other sites) that I'd consider far-fetched or sensational claims.
I see a singer performing in high quality and in teams, be it ensemble or with other soloists. I like that approach. I see her performing the lesser-performed music, both old and new, and would like to showcase that instead of deleting it. As John pointed out (below), there are different ways to establish notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (music). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I found this Amazon listing which has her credited on all but one track. The main artist seems to be Pascal Dusapin. Then I found that her artist page at Amazon has four albums listed, one of which is under her own name. Here is another listing, from the Ensemble Vocal de Pontoise.Wikipedia:Notability (music) says our benchmarks for a standalone article on a musician include "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." Maguelone (her record label) claims to have released work by Reynaldo Hahn and André Jolivet, who are independently notable, and to have been around since 1993. Overall, (and the coverage of her prize in a major French media source counts too) I think that this artist (just) meets WP:NMG, so I think this is a (fairly weak) keep from me. John (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

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

  • Delete: The article lacks mention of significant coverage or critical acclaim. There is also no information provided regarding the subject's record sales, chart placements, or awards, despite claims to the contrary. Fails WP:SIGCOV.--— MimsMENTOR talk 07:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
    Record sales, chart placements: not relevant for classical music. Recordings are, and recordings are there. Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
The SNG is tied to the notability of the record label. Albums made with an obscure small record label probably aren't notable. It's not like she recorded for a significant classical music label like Decca, Naxos, or Deutsche Gramophone which have international distribution. We don't even have an article on the label she recorded with which is telling. It looks to me like she is only active with a tiny French independent record label that doesn't appear all that notable. 4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Ana Coimbra

[edit]
Ana Coimbra (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)

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

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

  • Keep: I could find GNG in several sources of independent of subject. Check the Sout African here, I could find this, another by AngoRussia here, more here by Forbes Africa, also covered here in general. I could also stumble into this reported by subject's embassies in foreign countries. Again, you could not tag an article for AfD simply because it has less sources. That is the exact use of the template tags unless subject entirely has no traces of GNG. An article's sources being in foreign language other than in English is not a genuine reason for that. Otherwise, at very least, I would suggest redirecting it to Miss Angola, but then with pinged sources above, I go with keep. Hope the mentioned above can be used to sustain the article per WP:NEXIST--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Rebuttal: The Opais link you gave here is already in the article, and I dealt with its thinness in the deletion nomination. The embassy link provides just three sentences on the pageant, one of which is about the judges and not the subject of this bio. The South African gives us a bulleted list of stuff in the pageant handout like birth place and star sign, but nothing of substance for a biography – certainly nothing that could be used to expand the article. The Forbes article says very little at all, but notes she has an afro, a red swimsuit, and an unnamed "social project", but nothing really about the person. AngoRussia, a single sentence mentioning birthplace, area of study, and country of residence, nothing more. These, like the original sources, are shallow and/or in-passing and tied to the single event, which just underscores this is a BLP1E situation. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
An award is not an event, that passes, it’s an honour, that remains, and BLP1E does not apply imv. The guideline does not mention awards, at least, unless I missed it, whereas ANYBIO does. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

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

  • Delete: I tend to agree with the analysis above. The South African is a minimal source, if we had more, we could use it. But it's just not enough. The rest are trivial mentions or non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: WP:ANYBIO might apply as she received a significant award; if other users disagree redirect to Miss_Angola#Titleholders -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
I had missed the fact this was a bundled Afd....my !vote was originally about Lauriela Martins. Coverage in Pt exists about her. Ana Coimbra: see above, now. Other: idem. So keep all. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Yashar Vafaei Mamaghani

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

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

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

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

Hello, while I respect the reasoning behind the proposed deletion of Vafaei’s page, I believe the sources cited provide independent and impartial information. I see that he has been featured in many Turkish and global sources. Yashar Vafaei’s work, particularly his contributions in sustainable investment and economic development, holds significant value for society. The sources are not for promotional purposes but rather drawn from credible global sources that illustrate his impact in the business world and beyond. If there are sections that seem biased, I would be happy to assist in making necessary adjustments. I recommend preserving the page to continue offering valuable information to the public. Youtuberhakankeles (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Youtuberhakankeles, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contributing to the discussion. I was wondering if you happen to know this individual in a personal or professional context? TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi @TheJoyfulTentmaker, thank you for reaching out and for the warm welcome. Yes, I do know Yashar Vafaei and am familiar with his work. I’m here to contribute to this discussion to ensure that the article remains neutral and informative, following Wikipedia’s guidelines. I understand the importance of unbiased representation and would be happy to make any necessary edits to keep the content aligned with Wikipedia’s standards. Thank you for your guidance and feedback! Youtuberhakankeles (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

DXKS-FM (Cagayan de Oro)

[edit]
DXKS-FM (Cagayan de Oro) (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)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll try another relisting. Maybe User:Vineyard93 wants to take part in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Commotion Ltd v Rutty

[edit]
Commotion Ltd v Rutty (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)

Failed a PROD per User:A._B.'s prerogative, but as far as I can find, there are still no reliable sources that talk about this case that aren't just restating the facts of the case, and while I'm no lawyer or otherwise have expertise in the matter, those sources look to be mostly regurgitating anything it can get its hands onto rather that "this case and that case are important for xyz reason". No newspapers that I can find reported on the case at the time or since. Also as an aside, the creator of the page for....some reason, decided to have a very odd and irrelevant image for the infobox, but that's fixable in the case that I've overlooked sources that establish this case's nobility. Akaibu (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment: I've added several refs to the article. Google Books shows this case is cited by a number of books. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  • There is a too-long quote. Can I snip it down? Bearian (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC) I cut down on the extraneous matters in the two long quote. I’d love for someone to add in more cases and books that cited this case. Bearian (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep: The Google Scholar citations above show many articles discussing this case or how it has been used to advance other legal issues, I think it's notable. Coverage shows it's had a lasting impact on the legal world. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hinapia

[edit]
Hinapia (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:BAND, did not have significant coverage, and any coverage in reliable sources seems to be just regurgitations of press releases from their agency. Released one song that did not chart on any qualifying WP:CHART, then disbanded. RachelTensions (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. RachelTensions (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: a related article for one of the singers, Eunwoo, has been proposed for deletion. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep as they did chart on a recognised billboard chart, the World Digital Song Sales chart at a peak of 18. They also have reliable sources coverage such as Naver already in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
    The criteria for charts at WP:MUSIC is: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." World Digital Song Sales isn't a national music chart and isn't listed as an acceptable chart at WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS.
    As far as the Naver articles you mentioned, of the three in the article, this and this are just regurgitations of the press releases from their agency and don't meet the definition of "non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" as described in WP:BAND. RachelTensions (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS states "Genre-specific digital song sales and streaming songs charts should not be included unless a song did not chart on the respective all-genre Digital Song Sales or Streaming Songs charts and the genre's "hot" chart." so in these circumstances it is an acceptable chart. The better Naver ref is here, and there is significant coverage in this Billboard article here, more coverage here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 09:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete based on the argument that the World Digital Song Sales chart is not a qualifying chart per WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS. It's a single digital release from a band with no SIGCOV and an arguably ONEEVENT lifetime! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

National selections for the Eurovision Song Contest

[edit]
National selections for the Eurovision Song Contest (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)

While the national selections for the Eurovision Song Contest of each individual country may be considered notable, e.g. Melodifestivalen in Sweden or Melodi Grand Prix in Norway, and while I do believe there is scope for including information on individual country's selections within their own articles (see San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest#Selection process for a good example of this), I do not believe that there is justification for hosting a list of every single national selection which may have been held. I believe that this article contravenes several of Wikipedia's guidelines, including WP:LISTCRIT, WP:NOTDIRECTORY (specifically point 2 on "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics"), and in parts I believe this also falls down on WP:GNG as well as WP:OR (given the vast majority of information here is unsourced). I propose deleting the article and merging any useful, sourced parts into Eurovision Song Contest and individual country articles. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, Lists, and Europe. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.", and the set seems notable anyway; the informations are not ’loosely" associated. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. W/rt/ your statement that I do not believe that there is justification for hosting a list of every single national selection which may have been held. It is inarguable that the Eurovision selection process has been given substantial attention by RS, and that therefore that this list meets WP:NLIST. Addressing arguments point by point:
    1. LISTCRIT: How is this list not specific enough for that to be a problem?
    2. NOTDIR: Again, this list is very specific, so no issue with "loosely associated topics"
    3. GNG: Relevant criterion is NLIST, which is met as per above (and arguably irrelevant anyhow per Mushy Yank)
    4. OR: I fail to see how this list has any problems with that, rather than WP:verifiability, to which I point to WP:NOTCLEANUP
    5. I propose deleting the article and merging any useful, sourced parts into Eurovision Song Contest and individual country articles. The high-level main Eurovision contest article would be far too unwieldy with all this information.
    Mach61 00:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
    • I still think my counterarguments to the nom statement are correct, but participants below make good points, so I rescind my keep vote. Mach61 21:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete the table only. While selections are an important part of the Eurovision realm, this table/list format is not appropriate to convey that. The prose describing how entries are selected is all that is needed and in fact should be expanded as how entries were selected tends to be a point of discussion for the contest. I don't understand the point of the table. It is not user friendly, not accessible, and just serves as a dumping ground for unsourced information. Modern contests could have readily accessible refs, but the older ones are not as prevalent or accessible. That on its face is not the biggest issue, but rather every process is different depending on country, so grouping things by labels as just "national final" or "internal selection" is far too vague. Adding additional context would further create readability issues. Some select just a singer internally, some a song internally, some both the singer and the song internally; meanwhile some national finals have an open call for applicants, others have contestants that are internally selected, and yet still others have one singer they've selected singing singer multiple songs for consideration. If I want to see how a country selects their entry, I can navigate to their country's article (i.e. San Marino, Romania, etc.). There are far too many variables to present this information at this manufactured high level. Grk1011 (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
    @Grk1011 Votes to the effect of "Keep under the condition that..." shouldn't be cast, since discussions about improving the article belong on the article talk page, not here. Mach61 17:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
    Not exactly. If it's on the fence, I think the evidence presented leans more towards delete. There should be a place that discusses how entries are selected, but currently this article is not that in any meaningful way. The contest's website only discusses this with fewer than a dozen sentences, something which as of now could fully be part of the Eurovision Song Contest article without undue weight. Grk1011 (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
    @Grk1011 I think you misunderstand the page. It is not a regular article about the selection process that happens to contain a large list, it is a list-class page of all the broadcasters each Eurovision participant uses for their national finals, that just so happens to have some explication of the process for context. I agree that the non-list conent could be merged into the main article easily enough, but the list is the entire point of the page. You ought to be voting "Delete" Mach61 19:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
    That is why I !voted delete overall. The list is the worst part of this article for the reasons I listed above. This type of information is not properly conveyed in list form as it varies so much from country to country. Between the columns being misleading (there are more than just "national final" and "internal selection") and there being no way to compare country vs country via sort or quantity of any well-defined metric, I'm not sure what we're doing here. Grk1011 (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    @Sims2aholic8 Four of the six columns on the table (Country, debut and latest entry, broadcaster) show what ought to be pretty uncontreversial information, which means any country-to-country variance must be in cases where a year a competing country participated, they did not run either a clear internal selection or national final. May you give a specific example of that happening? To this non-Eurovision fan's eyes, all years seem to be neatly accounted for. Mach61 18:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
    @Mach61: The four columns you listed are indeed uncontroversial, and are already listed in several other articles, e.g. Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest and History of the Eurovision Song Contest. The issue I find with the table for these two columns is that there is a lot of information which is unverified, and in some cases is usually based solely on rumour or fan sites, which causes an issue for WP:OR and WP:UGC. I also believe, as Grk1011 points out above, that it's somewhat reductive to say simply that a country chooses an entry either through a national final or an internal selection. There are multiple cases where hybrid approaches have been used, most often where an artist is chosen and the song is selected, like Greece 2017, but occasionally the opposite can be true, where a composer is signed on and writes a song and then an artist is selected, like the Netherlands 2010. There have also been many times where talent show formats have been used to find an artist, and then the song is selected internally, like Israel's HaKokhav HaBa. There is also the question around whether a televised national selection is open to any entries, and any interested artists or songwriters can submit a song, or whether the national broadcaster restricts the entries to only certain artists, or artists attached to certain labels, e.g. Greece 2014. Countries have also initially decided to go for one method and then decided later on to change this, e.g. Germany 2016, where an internally selected artist was dropped due to public backlash, and a national final was then held, or Greece 2004, when a talent show to select an artist was held, and the planned final to select a song was abandoned when the broadcaster decided to select a different artist.
    The point I'm trying to raise is that the current structure of this article does not allow for sufficient context to be conveyed about the exact method of selection used in each country in a given year. Absolutely I believe that information on Eurovision national selections has a place within Wikipedia, as there's no doubt with me that the process is considered notable. This is why individual country articles exist, to explain in better context how the selection processes worked in those years. However I question whether a separate article on this is required and whether relevant prose can be added to the main Eurovision Song Contest article instead, but if it's decided to retain the article without the table that would be a sufficient compromise. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
    Updated my !vote to outright 'delete' given EurovisionLibrarian's views below. They're correct that say the table is gone, the remaining prose can be trimmed down quite a bit, resulting in an appropriate amount of material to be added/expanded at Eurovision Song Contest. Grk1011 (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete. I agree that the table is the main problem and its use for readers is more than doubtful. It also doubles information already present in other country articles and therefore can quickly be outdated or contradict other articles if someone forgets to update it regularly (at the moment, the information on France 1956-59 and Austria 1957 is wrong, for example). If only the table is deleted, I'm afraid that the rest of the prose left is not enough to justify a standalone article: the information present in the two sections "National finals" and "Internal selections" is of little value, in my opinion. Most parts of it consist of enumerations of examples of various formats, and the rest is based solely on one subpage from eurovision.tv. In my opinion, a condensed version of the two prose sections could be integrated into the main Eurovision Song Contest article and this article be deleted. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm sorry for whoever made the table, but I agree with all the reasons given for deletion. I don't think it's worth maintaining a table with so many problems that need to be constantly updated, instead of focusing efforts on other areas that need improvement. Ferclopedio (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Freenet (Central Asia)

[edit]
Freenet (Central Asia) (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 refs on the page, little independent third party sources found to show notability per WP:GNG. There seems to be more about the Internet Access and Training Program but that's unreferenced too and I'm not sure it could be shown to be notable either. This topic in particular appears to be a short lived programme of the US government with unknown ongoing importance. JMWt (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete This article is not ready for Wikipedia main space, As meintioned there is no reliable sources SATavr (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC) SATavr
Merge to IATP for the well-stated reasons given above. WilsonP NYC (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Karak Oil Refinery

[edit]
Karak Oil Refinery (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)

Construction never really started. Based on couple of news reports. Looks like a case of TOOSOON. Article is also GNG tagged. Wikibear47 (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Mount Alvernia High School (Jamaica)

[edit]
Mount Alvernia High School (Jamaica) (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 refs on the page for many years, nothing much found suggesting notability criteria have been met JMWt (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep. I found a few sources online and added them to the article when I saw this AfD, and have been waiting to see what other editors' views were. The school has existed for 99 years and evidently educates girls from some influential families, with at least one notable former student, Staceyann Chin. Safiya Sinclair, who didn't attend the school, mentions it in her memoir: "all the brightest girls either went to Montego Bay High School or Mount Alvernia High School". Because of these factors, I'd be surprised if there were not references in offline sources, memoirs, local history, that we are just not finding online. Tacyarg (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - What we need are sources about the school from which an article can be written, and those remain hard to find, but per Tacyarg, there seems to be a prima facie case for a presumption of notability here. For instance, various reliable sources, referring to former students, call this school "prestigious". E.g. [6], [7]. This accords with Tacyarg's searches too regarding thw words of Safiya Sinclair. There are research case studies based in the school such as [8]. It was formerly St. James Academy, under which name it is a little tricky to search (many false hits), but clearly was established in 1925. Unfortunate that we only have primary sources [9] from which the article can be written, yet it looks notable. There is a danger that if we synthesise primary sources we end up with original research, a secondary history article and not a tertiary encyclopaedic one. I'd consider a redirect but I don't think anything is appropriate. So I think we keep it and proceed with caution. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see a further review of content added by Tacyarg. But, of course, this discussion can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Weak keep at 99 years old, notability can indeed be presumed and there is that hint of notability from the sources found by Tacyarg. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Mee Massa (TV series)

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

Another draft that was moved back into mainspace. It's not very well sourced, and a Google search turns up little to nothing (YouTube videos, etc.). I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there any more support for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Pocket FM (platform)

[edit]
Pocket FM (platform) (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, WP:CORPDEPTH. Trivial coverage WP:ORGTRIV, promotional WP:PROMO. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep the platform has demonstrated notability through its significant user base, international expansion, and coverage in reputable sources, establishing it as a notable player in the digital audio streaming industry --Moarnighar (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

To be considered notable on Wikipedia, it's not enough to be popular in terms of user base; there needs to be significant coverage from trustworthy and independent sources. If the coverage isn’t thorough or the sources aren't reliable, the platform's importance in the digital audio streaming industry might be exaggerated. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source assessment table here might be of great use. Need to get to the bottom of if the sourcing is routine or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Source Assessment Table

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/pocket-fm-funding-audio-series-1235947135/ Yes Yes Trivial coverage on funding ? Unknown
https://restofworld.org/2024/elevenlabs-pocket-fm/ Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/21/lightspeed-finalizing-leading-80m-plus-funding-in-pocket-fm/ Yes No Wikipedia:TECHCRUNCH Trivial coverage on funding ✘ No
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/pocket-fm-to-start-ip-licensing-of-its-content/article65523336.ece Yes Yes Trivial coverage on service offerings ? Unknown
https://www.financialexpress.com/business/sme-pocket-fmaudio-streaming-service-storytelling-that-powers-binge-listening-2690554/ Yes Yes Trivial coverage on service offerings ? Unknown
https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/pocket-fm-to-invest-40-mn-to-expand-online-reading-library-11708408857053.html Yes Yes Trivial coverage on funding ? Unknown
https://www.financialexpress.com/business/brandwagon-pocket-fms-india-arm-registers-647-revenue-growth-losses-contracts-by-56-in-fy-2023-3355318/ Yes Yes Trivial coverage on the amount of revenue ? Unknown
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}}.

TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do editors agree with the source assessment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I would disagree with the source asssessment. Not every TechCrunch article is significant coverage but this one is. Combined with Variety this looks like a keep. And just as an additional point of reference $160MM in revenue is a lot, this is not a random just-launched startup that happened to get trade mentions. WilsonP NYC (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Your arguments about TechCrunch's reliability and revenue volume suggest a lack of understanding of the source assessment table provided above and the guidelines on trivial coverage. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
They just represent a difference of opinion in how to apply the community standards. The TC story is in depth and editorial in nature. And because we’re not a group of deeply confused people who think large sums of money are irrelevant to business notability, pointing out hundreds of millions in revenue is a useful reference point for the importance of the underlying subject. WilsonP NYC (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Zoé Kézako

[edit]
Zoé Kézako (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)

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

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

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

  • Keep: The Cartoons on the Bay 2004 Report mentions it and specifies which Pulcinella awards it won exactly. Also, by searching in french results specifically, I found a french news article in Le Monde's archive. These might be of use for some inline citations as well in order to improve the article. YuniToumei (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Kurdistan Islamic Relations Movement

[edit]
Kurdistan Islamic Relations Movement (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 about a very small political party that claims a few thousand members and has failed to get anyone elected to anything, securing 0.08% of the vote. Does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft. Incomplete text, add more headlines, history, steps of the movement, UzbukUdash (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
There is no point in draftifying an article on a non-notable topic, because no amount of editing will make it ready for mainspace. The issue isn’t the lack of headlines or detail. Quite the reverse - as it stands there is a lot of detail about a non-notable topic. Mccapra (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't get your pettyness, really. There is no clear rule on Wikipedia on the notability of political parties and there are literally countless examples of articles for parties of this extent on the encyclopedia, as I already argued on your talk page (but which you simply ignored; thanks for the "respectfulness" by the way). Anyways, if you can find a majority which supports the deletion of this article, I'd suggest making the text a subsection of the Kurdistan Islamic Movement, the party which the Kurdistan Islamic Relations Movement split from.--Ermanarich (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
I responded politely to your message on my talk page. I just don't agree with you. Mccapra (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
You didn't address any of my points. There are no rules on Wikipedia about when a party is notable or not. And you didn't go after any of the other examples of parties that are as small as this one I showed you as an example to get them deleted either. So what really is your point here? -- Ermanarich (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AFD needs some more civil discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Janicke Askevold

[edit]
Janicke Askevold (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 don't think she meets WP:NACTOR, no evidence of significant roles. Directing non notable films doesn't really add to WP:DIRECTOR. And only 1 hit in google news, which is unusual for someone with a career in Europe. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Desserts (film)

[edit]
Desserts (film) (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)

Completely unreferenced article about a short film. As always, films are not inherently notable just for existing, and have to be reliably sourced as passing certain specific notability criteria to qualify for inclusion -- however, the only claim of notability even attempted here is that Ewan McGregor was in it, but films do not inherit notability from their cast members, so having a famous actor in it does not exempt a film from having to pass WP:GNG in and of itself.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived British media coverage from the 1990s can find better sourcing than I've been able to locate on the Google, but even Ewan McGregor can't magically exempt short films from having to have sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, a BEFORE most certainly was performed.
Secondly, the source for any film award win has to be journalistic reportage about the award presentation in media, not film festival catalogues. An award has to itself be notable (i.e. pass WP:GNG) before it can make its winners notable for winning it, so the award has to be referenced to GNG-worthy media coverage in order to demonstrate that the award is notable enough to constitute a notability claim, and a film cannot be notable for winning an award that you have to source to promotional content on the self-published website of a film festival in lieu of proper media coverage about said award.
Thirdly, the sourcing for thing else about the film also has to be coverage about the film in media, not the self-published catalogues of film festivals or directory entries. Films always have to be shown to pass WP:GNG regardless of what notability claims are attempted, no notability claim is ever so "inherently" notable as to exempt a film from having to be referenced to GNG-worthy sourcing, and film festival catalogues and directory entries are not GNG-worthy sourcing. GNG requires journalistic coverage about the film in media, not indiscriminate-inclusion directory entries and directly affiliated promotional sources. Bearcat (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
You're welcome! So you performed a BEFORE but you failed to mention the short had WON a Silver Bear in your not-so-short rationale? (:D) Sure. You probably forgot that tiny detail. But I'll assume good faith. As for the rest, no. Coverage in books (see page, where one of the sources for the award is a BOOK: can you check it again -since you probably had seen it in your BEFORE?-) and any reliable source are OK for verification. The film has won a notable award at one the most prestigious film festivals in the history of cinema, it can therefore be considered notable. And that is just one reason to keep it. Also, self-published is generally not used with the meaning you seem to think it has; the links are to OFFICIAL websites of notable film festvals, they cannot be described as "self-published catalogues". I don't know what "sourcing for thing else" means. Anything? Sure. Again, not only "media" coverage counts. Just read the guideline. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Also, it might be interesting to compare the reply to my !vote, by the nominator, with that comment by the same user, at another AfD (where they were in favour of retaining the page....) it's a top-level national award that nails inherent notability to the wall right on its face per WP:ANYBIO's "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times", which means it's inherently notable enough that it locks notability down even if the sourcing is inadequate. The only legitimate grounds for deleting a Gemini/Genie/CSA winner would be if sourceability were completely nonexistent (e.g. a person whose article falsely claimed a nomination or win that they didn't really have)} (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Cluer) Do different standards apply to BLPs of (Canadian) filmmakers? Sourced nominations/collective wins at certainly notable Canadian awards imply "inherent notability" (emphasis not mine) in certain cases but films winning extremely notable awards at international festivals, although sourced with various references, should not be considered notable? -despite W:NFILM stating they can be considered notable if they win a major award-. Food for thought. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Firstly, WP:BEFORE only requires me to scan the results of a search to determine whether there are reliable and WP:GNG-worthy sources available in the pool, and does not require me to manually investigate each link to determine whether there's a hidden potential notability claim — at the time of nomination, the article did not say that there were any awards involved, so it is not my responsibility to have discovered that. BEFORE only requires me to determine whether reliable or GNG-worthy sources are available to salvage the article with, and does not require me to do the salvaging myself.
Secondly, you know what else isn't GNG-worthy support for notability either? Ebooks self-published by their own writers through print-on-demand houses.
And there's no conflict between what I'm saying here and what I said at Sebastian Cluer, either: the difference hinges on reliable sourcing. Sebastian Cluer's Canadian Screen Award nominations and wins were properly sourced to WP:GNG-worthy media coverage that reported the CSA nominees and winners as news, which means I applied the same standards to both topics and said absolutely nothing different there than here. The argument there wasn't that he was exempted from having to have any sourcing because of the award claims, the argument was about whether or not we needed to also find biographical sourcing about him in addition to the properly sourced award claims, which isn't the same thing at all.
By far the majority of winners of the Silver Bear for Best Short Film do not have Wikipedia articles, as can be seen by simply looking at that article. It's not that they can't have articles, obviously, but properly sourcing articles about short films is frequently harder than properly sourcing articles about feature films is, and the films are not exempted from having to be properly sourced just because there's an award involved — even a film with an award-related notability claim still has to be properly sourced. So most of the films in that list don't have articles, because it's a lot harder to find GNG-worthy sourcing that properly supports articles about short films. And again, that's not different from Sebastian Cluer at all, as his award-related notability claim was properly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I am not the one who wrote "The only legitimate grounds for deleting a Gemini/Genie/CSA winner would be if sourceability were completely nonexistent (e.g. a person whose article falsely claimed a nomination or win that they didn't really have)." but the Silver Bear win for the present short is now sourced with at least 4 reliable sources. Properly sourced. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Please do not substantially edit your comments once they have been replied to. It can be at best very confusing. Please kindly remove the added text and insert it below if you wish, per Wikipedia:REDACTED. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Ewan McGregor. I've searched and cannot find reliable secondary-source coverage of the film's Silver Bear win (setting aside the question of whether the Silver Bear is a "major" award). There's one scholarly treatment that Mushy Yank has added to the article, but I can't find any other evidence of a pass of WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. However, I'd suggest a redirect as an appropriate AtD that will preserve the page history should more coverage be turned up in the future. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this as a redirect due to sourcing concerns, which I still think remain, but Mushy Yank raised a valid question and more eyes don't hurt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International (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)

Extremely minor left-wing group, no notability established. Attempts to find RS come up blank, article is nearly 100% WP:SELFPUB violation. No likelihood for improvement.

Was discussed at an AFD around 13 years ago and adjourned as Keep, vague reason seems to be "sources exist" but given there's been no improvement in 13 years I don't think that defence really stands, nor can be established at this time. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
    As original author 20 years ago I agree with the deletion. Secretlondon (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  • 13 years or 13 weeks, we're not on a deadline. The previous discussion did not have a "vague reason", there were two explicit sources cited: Marilyn Vogt-Downey's (1993) "The USSR 1987-1991: Marxist Perspectives" (ISBN 9780391037724), which has 7-8 pages on the organisation, and a 1994 South African law report discussing a case against the Electoral Commission involving the WIRFI. I see mention in John Kelly's (2018) "Contemporary Trotskyism: Parties, Sects and Social Movements in Britain" ISBN 9781317368946 and further discussions of the South African case in other sources (eg South African Labour News, p.5), frequently in the context of constitutional law. While not in principle opposed to a merge, as far as I can see there's not a natural target given the number of splits, so I'm leaning towards a weak keep, but happy to reconsider. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
    @Goldsztajn those two sources were explicitly mentioned but it's never demonstrated they provide the sustained discussion necessary to meet GNG. For example that first source doesn't actually state it has 7-8 pages on the organisation, instead it states it documents 'comments presented by a few participants in the... conference organised by the Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International'. So is it about the group? Were all the participants members of this group? Is it just a long list of quotes from a conference? Answer is we don't know. And the same goes for the presenting of a book on South African court cases, where just naming the book doesn't actually detail what depth it goes into about the group (if really at all). That's why I regarded is as a vague "sources exist" because it's not actually demonstrated whether those sources are indeed suitable.
    If anything I think this really works as a good example of one of my biggest pet peeves with Wikipedia which when editors list sources in AfDs as an argument for Keep but they then don't add them to the article. If editors add them then it actually demonstrates they're good sources and renders the AfD moot (because the article has now been improved and it meets GNG), but simply mentioning sources in the AfD and doing nothing with them not only fails to improve the article but rather unfairly implies they're good sources without having used them and adds effectively "phantom weight" to the argument for Keep.
    As to "we're not on a deadline", then I'd argue that also applies as an argument for delete given that if in the future sources are actually demonstrated to support the existence of the article it can just be recreated. However if after 13 years there has been no discernible improvement of the article, including a failure to utilise sources listed at said previous AfD, then it does suggest that there is no realistic prospect of improvement and therefore should be deleted. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
    Hi @Rambling Rambler, I'll only respond to the philosophical comments by emphasising WP:NEXIST which reflects community consensus. I elaborated on the references referred to in the previous AfD explicitly indicating what they were - which was lacking in your nomination statement as I disagreed with your summary of the discussion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep – There appears to be some significant coverage of the group in independent sources; I support keeping the article and expanding on said coverage, specifically in regard to the South Africa case. Yue🌙 21:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
    There have been claims of significant coverage but it has never been evidenced. Goldsztajn above links WP:NEXIST and the section quoted below I think should really be noted here:
    "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface."
    I think 13 years has been far more than enough time for the previously alleged significant sources to have been appropriately cited but this hasn't happened, which suggests a lack of suitability. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment: Well, Gscholar has hits on this organization as late as 2018, so there is sustained coverage, there also seems to be an offshoot in Scotland... We have sustained coverage, but I'm not sure if it's enough to build an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge to Movement for Socialism (Britain). Wellington Bay (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Sistani of Golestan

[edit]
Sistani of Golestan (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 is very difficult to understand. Some people moved from Sistan to Golestan for reasons that are largely lost in translation. Is this movement notable? Between Farsi and Russian sources, hard to say. I don’t think our readers are well served by having something so garbled in mainspace, so suggest draftifying for further work. Mccapra (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Sistani (people). Running the sources through machine translation suggests that this migration is likely notable and the sources seem to be reliable scholarly work. This might qualify as content not suitable for an encyclopedia (WP:DEL#REASON #14) and justify WP:TNT, but deletion would remove the sources from the page history in case someone wants to recreate this with comprehensible text. Therefore, blanking and redirecting is the best solution. Toadspike [Talk] 09:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 14:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

1939–40 Maltese FA Trophy

[edit]
1939–40 Maltese FA Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is another article I moved into draftspace; it was then moved into mainspace back without any changes. A WP:BEFORE search would be difficult for something that happened in the 1930s. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Divided between Redirection or Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Further to the above, see here where the creator says that they have contacted the Maltese FA directly for the information but won't be able to provide a source, so basically original research. This article fails V and NOR, 2 of the 3 main policies of Wikipedia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Changing to keep. It's not original research, it's not unverifiable, and it's part of an article structure which should be able to have an article on it if it passes GNG. There are definitely articles on the tournament, including this modern one. Unfortunately some of the information in the newspaper article doesn't match what is in our article, and I trust the newspaper more. I'm sure there would be additional sources if we were able to do a newspaper search of Malta for 1940 papers. SportingFlyer T·C 03:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
    I've also fixed the scoreline in the final, added scorers, and added two sources to the article. It could use further improvement, but I don't know how to look at Maltese papers. It's almost certainly notable if that 2007 article can get into that level of detail, though. SportingFlyer T·C 03:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
    @SportingFlyer If an article can be sourced, it should be kept. However, all because the 2007 article is sourceable doesn't mean this one is; if this one is sourceable, though, that's a good thing! I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again, now divided between keep and redirect. Can we evaluate sourcing potential slightly more?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 01:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Waiting for Woody

[edit]
Waiting for Woody (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)

Completely unreferenced article about a short film, not making any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not all automatically notable just for existing, and have to show reliably sourced evicence of passing one or more notability criteria to qualify for inclusion -- but the attempted notability claim here is an unsourced table of awards from minor film festivals whose awards aren't "inherently" notable enough to exempt a film from having to have sources. (And the most notable film festival in the table is one where it's pulling the "nominee for film festival award that was wide-open to every single film in the program and didn't actually curate any special shortlist of finalists" stunt that Wikipedia editors often pull to oversell a film's passage of "notable because awards" -- which, therefore, also cannot be an "inherent" notability freebie without sources explicitly stating that the film was actively "nominated" for the award either.)
The film, further, also cannot claim "inherent" notability just because you've heard of some of the people in the cast list -- notability is not inherited, so even a film with famous people in its cast still has to pass WP:GNG on its sourcing. A Google search, further, turned up nothing useful, finding only directory entries, primary sources and a single glancing namecheck of this film's existence as a prior work by the director in an article whose primary subject was a different later film rather than this.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film from having to have any sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: Coverage exists in various languages. See GBooks please. Mildly notable awards and nomination. Extremely notable cast and director. A redirect to the latter is totally warranted. Willing to improve this later. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I did check Google Books: I'm not getting WP:GNG-worthy coverage about the film, I'm just getting glancing namechecks of its existence in filmographies and directories.
An award only supports a film's notability to the extent that said award can be referenced to GNG-worthy media coverage that treats the award presentation as news. An award has to itself be notable in its own right before it can make its winners notable for winning it, so an award only supports notability if it's referenced to WP:GNG-worthy media reportage, and does not support notability if it's either unreferenced, or referenced solely to primary source content self-published by a directly affiliated entity (such as either the film festival's own website or the film's own marketing materials). But the awards here are all completely unsourced, and my BEFORE searches did not find any GNG-worthy referencing that could be added to support the award claims.
"Nominations" also have to be properly supported by GNG-worthy media coverage, because that's highly prone to promotional manipulation. I see this happen all the time with the Toronto International Film Festival, for example: films frequently try to make the notability claim that they had been "nominees" for the People's Choice Award, but that's not an award that actually has "nominees" — every feature film in the festival program is automatically eligible for People's Choice by simple virtue of being present in the festival program at all, so being eligible for that award is not a meaningful or notability-bolstering distinction. There are obviously some exceptions, such as the Palme d'Or at Cannes or TIFF's Platform Prize, where the film played in a special competitive program that was curated to compete for a special prize that most other films at the festival weren't in contention for — for awards like that, "nomination" is a valid notability claim, but for a regular non-competitive "every film at the festival was automatically eligible for consideration" award, "nomination" is not a distinction, so an award nomination requires GNG-worthy sourcing to demonstrate that the award was a special competitive program with a curated shortlist of nominees, and not just an "every film in the program was automatically eligible for consideration" award.
Neither the notability of cast members nor the notability of the director constitute inclusion freebies that exempt a film from having to pass GNG just because there are notable people being wikilinked in the body text, either. Bearcat (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
    The article is now sufficiently well-"GNG-worthy"-sourced to show the featurette meets NFILM ("The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career, for example") and GNG (has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources) and that there's no apparent reason for deletion. See for yourself. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
    (I am obviously talking about Grant Heslov when I mention the film is an important part in their career (not Clooney or Aniston.... See the two LA Times articles, one by Mary McNamara, a Pulitzer Prize winner.) Mushy Yank (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete Like the nominator, I am getting only brief mentions. The most that I could find was the nice but short paragraph in the Pratt DVD book. Unfortunately the other books that are listed as sources in G-Books are ones with no preview, and a web search turns up IMDB and various user-created film sites. There is a source only for one of the awards. As for Clooney and Aniston, their roles (listed in the Pratt paragraph as cameos) aren't enough to make this short film significant. Lamona (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: In addition to the Pratt DVD book, I found a newspaper article about the film in the Palm Beach Daily News. It's fairly brief, but detailed and entirely about the film. Toughpigs (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus‎. There are good arguments made to keep and delete the article, but it appears we are not headed for a consensus in either direction. Discussions to rename the article can continue outside of AfD. Malinaccier (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

List of Storm Prediction Center meso-gamma mesoscale discussions

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of Storm Prediction Center meso-gamma mesoscale discussions (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 meso-gamma designation has a clear definition, however it isn't marked on each Mesoscale Discussion individually. There's an OR problem when it comes to determining entry as to determine an entry in the list, barring a secondary source confirming the meso-gamma designation (which I don't believe exist on the list at the moment), the MD must be analyzed by Wikipedia editors and I don't have to go into any more detail to let you know that's a bad idea. I'd accept if this article was completely rewritten with sources confirming each entry's inclusion but I'm not holding out hope this goes down as anything more than WP:LISTCRUFT, as much as I'd like to keep this article. Departure– (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep – False statement was given in the nomination. "the MD must be analyzed by Wikipedia editors" is a false statement. The definition is clear, as even described by the nominator. Just because the government doesn't mark them separately does not mean editors are "analyzing" it. I'd practically argue the basic principles behind WP:CALC & WP:DUCK. This list, simply put, is when the SPC confirms (1) an ongoing tornado or (2) 100+ mph winds. These are not analyzed by Wikipedia editors, as claimed by the nominator, but rather, literally editors looking at the NOAA text (cited obviously) where the NOAA forecasters (along with any RS media) say there is a tornado. To note, this article was kept following a previous deletion attempt for being "niche" and LISTCRUFT. Given the nominator acknowledged (1) there is a clear definition for this list's topic and (2) stated Wikipedia editors were violating OR (which has no evidence supporting that) and (3) this survived a previous AFD for being niche/listcruft, I see no new deletion reasons to try to overturn the previous consensus to keep this article.
RS media like this article from Forbes discussed the SPC issuance of one of the items on this list: "The Storm Prediction Center (SPC) even issued a mesoscale discussion—a small-scale, short term forecast—alerting the region that radar and environmental data indicated that the tornado was likely an EF-4 or an EF-5. Meteorologists usually don’t put out that kind of a statement while a storm is in progress, but the SPC closed the discussion with a harrowing, all-caps warning: “THIS IS AN EXCEPTIONALLY RARE EVENT.” While it may be a partially "niche" topic, it is clearly not OR violations and LISTCRUFT arguments were already under a "keep" consensus. No new deletion reasonings, in my point of view. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion there's far too many "Is this a meso-gamma discussion" topics on the talk page and too many "revert if necessary but I don't think these are meso-gamma" edits that aren't reverted for what I see as fit for inclusion. I see too many gray areas for WP:DUCK (especially considering it's a policy on sockpuppetry and wouldn't hold water on original research). Not every case has a bold "THiS IS AN EXCEPTIONALLY RARE EVENT" in it's text. Departure– (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
(drive-by comment) This Forbes article is not reliable. It was written by a "Contributor" which is equivalent to user-generated content. See WP:FORBESCON. C F A 💬 01:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment – The duck test only applies to sockpuppetry and copyright violations. Not to article content like original research. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 16:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
That said, I don’t believe Forbes, especially “contributor” content from Forbes, is a reliable source. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 16:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep – I think this article is very good for what it does and its more rare than a tornado emergency, meso-gamma is basically a small area so that just makes sense for the name meso-gamma mcd ModdiWX (You Got Mail!) 14:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete – I myself almost nominated this for deletion too. And I have to disagree with WeatherWriter’s rationale here. And I’ll list the multiple reasons why this needs deleted below:
1. As the nominator points out; while the meso-gamma criteria is very clear cut, the SPC doesn’t mark them. In fact, the term “meso-gamma mesoscale discussion” is so obscure that I didn’t even know about it until I stumbled on this article.
2. Because it is so obscure; and because the SPC itself doesn’t even use the term in ANY of its discussions; it leads me to think that it isn’t the Storm Prediction Center determining which discussions are “meso-gamma”; it is Wikipedia making that determination. Which (unlike what WeatherWriter will tell you), would violate WP:OR and quite possibly WP:LISTCRUFT as well (although I’m not that familiar with the latter, so I won’t say for sure on the cruft part).
Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 01:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment – The ONLY keep argument that I might be okay with is if we renamed the title to something like “List of Storm Prediction Center Mesoscale Discussions that concern individual tornadoes”; since that would remove the WP:OR problems. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 02:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
I could get behind that, since that would remove the “OR violation” (I don’t see one, but I know you and Departure see one). That is basically what meso-gamma discussions are anyway, so yeah, I would 100% support a renaming over deletion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
@Departure–: Would this be something you could get behind? That topic would be well-sourced and clear any possible OR violations. If you do get behind it, then this AFD discussion could be speedy-closed and then the article instantly renamed and restructured appropriately. Thoughts? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Really not sure about that one. What connects an MD to a tornado event? I could see news linking watches to events but I'd be shocked if they knew what a mesoscale event. Barring that and obvious cases, there's still the problem of meso-gamma discussions being hard to define without OR (no matter how simple). Departure– (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Mesoscale discussions are named by the Storm Prediction Center. Like actually, that is their formal name (see SPC Mesoscale Discussions. The Mesoscale Discussion text themselves (for those that are "meso-gamma" directly mention an ongoing tornado. There would be 0 OR as every aspect would be cited. The entire possible OR issue mentioned by You and Hurricane Clyde are on the "meso-gamma" aspect, not "mesoscale discussion", which is a very well-known/well-cited thing. For reference, the SPC has issued thousands of mesoscale discussions. This list, simply put, is those that mention ongoing tornadoes. "What connects an MD to a tornado event" is the text of the mesoscale discussion. For example, this right here is the mesoscale discussion referenced by the Forbes article. which states directly, "...confidence is high for a likely violent tornado. A long-track tornado is expected to continue..." Those are obvious to connect with damage surveys/articles over on the yearly tornado articles (for that tornado, 2020 Easter tornado outbreak#Bassfield–Seminary–Soso–Moss–Pachuta, Mississippi). Others include this Mesoscale discussion which directly states "Intense tornado (EF3+) ongoing" (for the 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado...note, the mesoscale discussion is specifically mentioned in the article's "Storm development" section) or this Mesoscale discussion for the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado which actually stated, "A strong to potentially violent tornado is ongoing and expected to continue for at least another hour".
In fact, now that I think about it, I highly support keeping the article and renaming/restructuring it to be specifically mesoscale discussions mentioning ongoing tornadoes. No OR issue and those specific mesoscale discussions are often used in other articles as references + actual descriptions in the article text. With that explanation, does that satisfy your possible OR concerns with a renaming Departure–? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Quick note, RS media does know what a "mesoscale discussion" is. I recommend going to Google, searching "Mesoscale discussion" and then going to the "news" tab. That will save me from linking the hundreds of articles mentioning them. For simplicity, here is an RS news article titled "What Is a Mesoscale Discussion?", so obviously, RS media does know what they are and can explain them, which would solve any "niche" topic arguments regarding a renamed/restructured list for any mesoscale discussion mentioning an ongoing tornado. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
The small scale topic of the article may get it brought back to AfD, but I wouldn't be too opposed to that if it kills the OR concerns. But either way, I'd advise waiting until this discussion closes before taking any restructuring actions. Departure– (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
The discussion theoretically could be closed now per [[WP:CSK|Wikipedia's Speedy Keep reasonings], since the only 3 !voting editors involved in the discussion all are not opposed to a rename/restructuring. The 7-day AFD doesn't need to continue unless you want it to. So, do you wish to withdraw the AFD nomination and let the restructure/rename occur, or, do you want to wait the full 7 days before that could occur? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
@Departure–, the SPC does clearly say whenever the discussion concerns a single tornado. They just don’t use the “meso-gamma” wording.
But I am still going to support deletion; and just consider the renaming to be an acceptable alternative. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 05:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
I should note quickly, the reason the first nomination of this article for deletion ended with arguments roughly stating that it passed notability guidelines due to secondary sourcing and that more sources would be added. However, if you look at most of the secondary sources, most are for the ratings of tornadoes / wind events themselves, not at all the meso-gamma discussions. The meso-gamma discussions are hardly notable in themselves, nor is sourcing for the meso-gamma designation easy to come by directly without interpretation much more volatile and subjective than WP:CALC was intended for. This is also why I'm not fully in support of reworking the article to specific tornadoes, and why maybe the article shouldn't have survived that first AfD discussion. OR and notability of the meso-gamma discussions themselves is the debate, not the notability of the events they're linked to. Departure– (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment – in that case, my original delete !vote remains valid. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 15:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Discussion to completely change the direction of the page shouldn't be discussed here. If the article gets deleted, it gets deleted, and the new list can be WP:BOLDly created and challenged independently. See also WP:HIJACK, which, although not as blatant as the examples there, and guided by contributor's consensus, it's still better to make the page seperately. Departure– (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Like I said @Departure–; my !vote to delete ain’t changing. I just threw out the move as an “acceptable alternative” that would solve the OR problem. Nothing will solve the LISTCRUFT problem. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 17:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Which, I can understand @WeatherWriter‘s desire to keep the article. After all; he’s the one who created the article. I too would probably be passionate about keeping an article that I created. And would probably be real quick too !vote keep on the list of West Virginia tornadoes or the 2022 Appalachian floods article for that reason. But that still doesn’t change the fact that this is a potential OR violation. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 17:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I want to reiterate my support for deletion. The determination of what qualifies as a meso gamma discussion is apparently decided by Wikipedia editors and not by the Storm Prediction Center. That is WP:OR right there. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Ireland–Mali relations

[edit]
Ireland–Mali relations (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 article is based on entirely primary sources. Fails GNG. Curiously the article says sources retrieved in Sept 2024 and March 2022 when the article was just created. This source is not indepth and this one is a small 1 line mention of Mali. LibStar (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Goldsztajn, you've tracked down all of these sources but you haven't stated what outcome you are supporting. Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Liz - thanks for the ping. I'd originally suggested redirecting to European Union Training Mission in Mali. I'm still open to that - but I was actually hoping to hear back from @LibStar who'd made the nomination and asked questions about sourcing, but not responded to what has been presented so far. Also, looking back at their comment: "relations are more broad than the European Union Training Mission in Mali, so oppose redirect." - which is not clear to me; if the sources at this point show that relations are essentially only related to the deployment, how can it be "more"? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Those bilateral relations articles that have been redirected are linked to Foreign relations of X article. So redirecting to EU Training Mission article seems to be an exception rather than the norm. LibStar (talk) 05:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
And do you have an opinion on the sourcing I've cited? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Sources should be added to European Union Training Mission in Mali. LibStar (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)