Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 26	October 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lorena Vindel

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

I don't believe she meets WP:NACTOR. Only 1 significant role. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least 2.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Honduras. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She had 2 significant roles, plus, from a cursory Google search, it seems likely that one of the other films she acted in is also notable. Noah ^💬 02:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: fairly meets WP:NACTOR for her lead roles in Seven Billard Tables and Mami Blue, both notable films, although the latter has no page on the English WP yet (but see the corresponding article in Spanish for example.) Even received a mildly notable award for one of her roles. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

History of the Jews in Botswana

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

Extremely small minority with little significance, nearly half the article is about Botswana's relations with Israel because of how little coverage there is of the 21 members of this community. If this qualifies as notable you could make thousands of X ethnicity in Y country articles. Gazingo (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Judaism, and Botswana. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There could be 10 people or 5 people in this community and it wouldn't matter as long as reliable sources existed. The current size of the community is irrelevant. Jewish communities are almost always small in most countries. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources in the article are Jewish websites with articles for "Jews in X country" for every country. Are there any sources about Botswana Jews specifically outside of the context of listing facts about the Jewish communities in every country? Gazingo (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a notable incident that isn't currently covered that seems worthwhile on my WP:BEFORE search.^[1] Andre🚐 23:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Makgala, Christian John (2006). "Bid to Settle Jewish Refugees from Nazi-Germany in Botswana, 1938-1939". Botswana Notes and Records. 38: 20–32. ISSN 0525-5090.

- Even though that's one source, note there's also a JTA article in the article. Andre🚐 01:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is Andre's source enough to keep this? Are there more?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Religion in Botswana#Judaism is a potential merge target if consensus is against retaining this article as is. Left guide (talk) 08:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bohemian Baltimore. Eladkarmel (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Religion in Botswana#Judaism - This is a very, very slim WP:GNG pass, on the basis of the Botswana Notes and Records and Jewish Telegraphic Agency articles. As an editorial matter, this content would be better covered at Religion in Botswana#Judaism, where it functionally is covered already. Suriname0 (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I started reviewing the article to identify where sources are needed or missing. With some reorganisation, I believe this article does not warrant deletion. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the religion in Botswana/Judaism section as suggested above seems like a fine idea. This isn't a terribly notable community otherwise, as far as Wikipedia notability goes. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Oaktree b: There is no such WP standard of requiring "community" because if an article has WP:RS and its WP:V then its WP:N and it hence stays on WP. In addition Jewish communities are often very small, but that does not make them insignificant. Kindly note there are only about 15 million Jews in the world versus about 7 billion non-Jews! So when dealing with the subject of Jews in countries their numbers will always be relatively much smaller compared to the general population/s. 03:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep because there are enough WP:RS and it's WP:V. IZAK (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I have significantly upgraded the article with additional information, new sections, and citations. Please take a look. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keephas enough WP:RS.Quotevegas (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland–Mali relations

(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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Ireland. LibStar (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, the only GNG-qualifying sources I could find online had to do with Ireland's peacekeeping mission in Mali. Noah ^💬 02:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There do not appear to be sources (independent, secondary, non-trivial) that would establish notability. Yilloslime (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As an ATD, possible redirect to European Union Training Mission in Mali, which included deployment of the Irish Army. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Whitby Allen

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

Lack of citations, notability Euclid316 (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Euclid316 (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Missouri. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be fairly well written article, just needs sources.
Plenty of coverage at Google Books and Joplin Globe that would allow fleshing out of the article and its sourcing. RachelTensions (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While in-line citations would help establish notability, articles like [1] and [2] are enough to meet the GNG, IMO. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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} 22:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of filmed mass shootings

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NLIST, the specific subset of "filmed" mass shootings is rather arbitrary, just like the selection criteria. Polygnotus (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets NLIST. See lede citations (in specific 2, 3, 4 and 7, which discuss filmed mass shootings in a secondary way). I would support a move to List of live-streamed mass shootings to trim it down, or a move to List of video-captured mass shootings to make it less arbitrary. Sir MemeGod  22:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote the first version of the article. Looking at the citations in the lead section, the first one doesn't appear to support the claim made in the article (and its about using AI to detect shooters, not about filmed mass shootings). Others are about how social media companies deal (or don't deal) with such videos. Polygnotus (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You make a point. I would still suggest just trimming it down to live-streamed mass shootings and moving the page, as that does meet NLIST, as indicated by the other citations. Sir MemeGod  22:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have reliable sources for a List of live-streamed mass shootings? I did a quick Google search and many of the articles I can find are basically people complaining that social media platforms suck at moderating content (which is true). Polygnotus (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References 4, 7, 8 and 9 are just a few examples. I’m on mobile, I can link a plethora of links tomorrow on the subject if you’d like. Sir MemeGod  23:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Polygnotus (talk)
Source	Comments
"AI-powered cameras become new tool against mass shootings". AP News. 2019-08-30. Retrieved 2024-10-13.	Doesn't appear to support the claim made in the article; is about using AI to detect and prevent
"Digital Threat Report: Mass Shooter Videos". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 2024-10-12.	Is mostly about the fact that social media moderation sucks
Perrigo, Billy (2022-05-17). "Why Tech Companies Struggled to Stop Buffalo Terror Video". TIME. Retrieved 2024-10-12.	Is mostly about the fact that social media moderation sucks
"Livestreamed carnage: Tech's hard lessons from mass killings". AP News. 2022-05-17. Retrieved 2024-10-12.	Is mostly about the fact that social media moderation sucks
"Christchurch Mosque Attack Livestream classification decision". Classification Office. 2022-01-18. Retrieved 2024-10-12.	Appears to be a government body classifying videos in New Zealand talking about one specific video. Their conclusion is predictable.
"Why you should think twice about watching the Christchurch shooting live stream". ABC News. 2019-03-15. Retrieved 2024-10-12.	Also about one specific video, and why sharing and viewing terrorist videos may be unwise.
"Livestreams of Mass Shootings: From Buffalo to New Zealand". New York Times. May 19, 2022. Retrieved October 12, 2024.	Is mostly about the fact that social media moderation sucks
Writer, Matthew Impelli (2022-09-12). "Live-Streamed Shootings Pose 'Tremendous Challenge' for Stopping Them". Newsweek. Retrieved 2024-10-12.	Gives some examples of livestreamed crimes, then discusses social media platforms responsibility

Sure, the news articles start by giving some examples of crimes/shootings/mass shootings that were filmed/livestreamed, but then they quickly move on to "what can be done" and "why do social media companies suck at moderating". I don't see WP:INDEPTH WP:SIGCOV that "directly and in detail" talks about filmed mass shootings specifically. Polygnotus (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC) (edit conflict) Please no WP:IDONTLIKEIT !voters, we should have a debate based on the sources; Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Polygnotus (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SIGCOV also states that: but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, which is what I see here (talked about, more than a trivial mention, but not directly the topic). I’m not trying to bludegon the discussion, and apologies if I’m doing so. Sir MemeGod  23:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir MemeGod: Bludgeoning is saying the same thing over and over again; you are just making your case and explaining your POV which is exactly what you should be doing. Polygnotus (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Crime, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree with Polygnotus' source analysis. As an example, "Livestreamed carnage: Tech's hard lessons from mass killings" describes the Buffalo supermarket shooting, the shooter's manifesto, the shooter's choice of platforms, and the experience of the victims' families in a way that is specific to filmed shootings. There is also discussion of what did happen with the social media moderation in this case, compared to what happened in previous shootings. The description "is about the fact that social media moderation sucks" is simply untrue; there are many paragraphs of facts about the case and similar cases without opining. There is plenty of coverage of this phenomenon, and the cases are always compared and described in relation to each other, making this a specific group or set that satisfies NLIST. Toughpigs (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: If you want to make your own, see User:Polygnotus/Scripts/SourceTable. Polygnotus (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One minor nitpick, that AP source talks about livestreams, not videorecordings in general. What do you think about Sir MemeGod's proposal to trim it down to List of live-streamed mass shootings? Although I am not so sure a single source, much of which is offtopic, is enough for that. Polygnotus (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used that as an example of the flaws in your analysis; the same holds true for the New York Times article and the Time article. Your assertion that these articles aren't significant because they discuss social media is unpersuasive. Toughpigs (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: Which parts of the nytimes article are specifically about "filmed mass shootings"? I just re-read it and I can't find any. Polygnotus (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll make a list in a bit, I’m (still) on mobile, and we all know how much the WMF tech team cares about mobile users. :) Sir MemeGod  12:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page is obsolete. Polygnotus (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Sir MemeGod (talk)
Source	Comments
"AI-powered cameras become new tool against mass shootings". AP News. 2019-08-30. Retrieved 2024-10-13.	I do agree that this one isn't really relevant or demonstrates SIGCOV, besides a passing mention of Christchurch and Parkland.
"Digital Threat Report: Mass Shooter Videos". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 2024-10-12.	"Years after three horrific mass shootings, videos created by the different attackers behind them are still present on social media and mainstream streaming services. Some services are facing challenges detecting and getting rid of these videos, and one, Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter), doesn’t appear to be trying to remove these videos with any consistency or rigor. After Hatewatch reported the videos, which feature mass murder, X responded that they do not violate their terms of service, then abruptly removed the videos after receiving a request for comment on this story. Perpetrators of massacres in Christchurch, New Zealand; Halle, Germany; and Buffalo, New York, filmed themselves as their crimes took place and simultaneously livestreamed the murders to social media sites for others to discover and view. In each case, viewers have downloaded their own copies of the videos and posted them onto other social media platforms and websites, spreading the videos far beyond their original online footprints.". This seems to be specifically talking about filmed mass shootings, more than just a passing mention of social media. Remember, to meet SIGCOV, a topic does not need to be the main focus of the (news) article.
Perrigo, Billy (2022-05-17). "Why Tech Companies Struggled to Stop Buffalo Terror Video". TIME. Retrieved 2024-10-12.	"Live-streamed attacks by white supremacists are a potent radicalization tool for future extremists, and platforms have struggled to remove edited copies of the videos of past attacks. In March 2019, a white supremacist gunman in New Zealand massacred 51 people at two mosques in the city of Christchurch, livestreamed on Facebook. Months later, a man with a camera on his helmet attacked a synagogue in Halle, Germany, killing two and injuring two others, livestreamed on Twitch. Videos of both attacks were shared widely on social media platforms, prompting a game of whack-a-mole between tech companies and users". This speaks for itself.
"Livestreamed carnage: Tech's hard lessons from mass killings". AP News. 2022-05-17. Retrieved 2024-10-12.	"These days, mass shooters like the one now held in the Buffalo, New York, supermarket attack don’t stop with planning out their brutal attacks. They also create marketing plans while arranging to livestream their massacres on social platforms in hopes of fomenting more violence. Sites like Twitter, Facebook and now the game-streaming platform Twitch have learned painful lessons from dealing with the violent videos that often accompany such shootings. But experts are calling for a broader discussion around livestreams, including whether they should exist at all, since once such videos go online, they’re almost impossible to erase completely." This does appear to be SIGCOV, and even INDEPTH at that.
"Christchurch Mosque Attack Livestream classification decision". Classification Office. 2022-01-18. Retrieved 2024-10-12.	Citation was there to cupport a claim that certain mass shooting videos are illegal to view, which it does. That one wasn't supposed to demonstrate SIGCOV.
"Why you should think twice about watching the Christchurch shooting live stream". ABC News. 2019-03-15. Retrieved 2024-10-12.	Same as above.
"Livestreams of Mass Shootings: From Buffalo to New Zealand". New York Times. May 19, 2022. Retrieved October 12, 2024.	This one is borderline, it does talk about the topic but probably doesn't meet INDEPTH.
Writer, Matthew Impelli (2022-09-12). "Live-Streamed Shootings Pose 'Tremendous Challenge' for Stopping Them". Newsweek. Retrieved 2024-10-12.	"Preventing shootings from being live-streamed could help dissuade future violence, but stopping the information from being broadcast presents a "tremendous challenge" for social media companies. At least three shootings in the last few months were live-streamed, broadcasting the suspect's violent actions across social media platforms. Experts told Newsweek that the appeal of live-streaming violent crimes might come from the world's obsession with social media, making it even more critical that social media companies quickly remove violent content." This also appears to be coverage supporting my rationale of it meeting WP:LISTCRIT, WP:NLIST, and WP:SIGCOV.

@Polygnotus: Thoughts? If the article is kept, I will request a move to "List of live-captured mass shootings" to reduce confusion. Sir MemeGod  13:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir MemeGod: Have you seen Livestreamed crime? I know its not "officially" a list article but most of it is a list. In some countries police wear bodycams, and may or may not release video to the public depending on various factors. Also, in many cases CCTV footage is handed over to the police, but not available to the public. Should partially-filmed mass shootings count? Should mass shooting of which only part of the footage was released count? Does the video need to start before the event and end after the event? What percentage qualifies?

I think the real topic of the list is not "filmed mass shootings", but At least partially filmed mass shootings where at least some of the footage is available to the public. And my interpretation of SIGCOV and NLIST is far stricter (I think that at most only a couple of sentences per source deal with the topic at hand, and that that is not enough), but good faith people can disagree on such matters. Nowadays in the western world almost everyone carries a camera at almost all times so in a mass shooting situation the likelihood of there being at least some video is very high (especially since police take video to document evidence). Polygnotus (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I started a discussion on the article's talk page, which would have been much better than a flat-out deletion discussion. You are right, the topic (at least to me, when I started it) was that if it was filmed on camera/video/bodycam/CCTV and there are reliable sources talking about it's filming, then it can be included. It shouldn't be a list of every mass shooting ever caught on video, and if it was there could be thousands of entries. Sir MemeGod  14:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective the criteria are so arbitrary that it will always fail WP:LISTCRIT, because no matter what Wikipedians decide to use as criteria the sources will use different ones. To be honest this is just a very difficult topic for a (list)article so people will always disagree on how to best cover such events (or not). Polygnotus (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a criteria saying that arbitrary/controversial topics aren't notable and should be deleted as such? A really good example of this is List of micronations, which can be hard to define. If I declare my house a micronation, can it be included? No, because a set inclusion criteria was discussed, which is what should be done here. Sir MemeGod  14:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I believe there is a consensus that, for example, a List of gifted left-handed composers whose parents immigrated from Bremen to Norway and who vote for center-right parties gets deleted, even if there are dozens of them. It is a bit overly specific when basically all modern mass shootings in the western world have been videorecorded at least partially. And the likelihood of people disagreeing on a Wikipedia article about a topic grows exponentially the more controversial the topic is. What do you think about a merge with Livestreamed crime? Perhaps the live-streamed aspect is more of a defining feature. And then perhaps restrict that to Crime livestreamed by the perpetrator. I am spitballing here. Polygnotus (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm just glad we're having a civilized, policy-based discussion, which is few and far between nowadays. If there are reliable sources talking about Gifted left-handed composers whose parents immigrated from Bremen to Norway and who vote for center-right parties and it meets NLIST, then it can have an article. What we do need to discuss is the inclusion criteria/trimming it down, which would be for either an RfC, RM or talk page discussion, rather than an AfD. I'd say that Livestreamed crime is in bad condition, anyways, and a list could be seperate (but again, for an RM). Sir MemeGod  14:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: And rename as suggested. Indeed meets WP:NLIST as a topic discussed "as a set" in reliable sources. Aside note: List of gifted left-handed composers whose parents immigrated from Bremen to Norway and who vote for center-right parties should also be renamed if created: "gifted" is non-neutral.(:D) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional refs about the topic as a set include: Glenn W. Muschert, ‎Johanna Sumiala, School Shootings: Mediatized Violence in a Global Age, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2012 (XXIV-XXV); Kardaras, Nicholas. Digital Madness: How Social Media Is Driving Our Mental Health Crisis--and How to Restore Our Sanity, St. Martin's Publishing Group, 2022. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Evans

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

I don't believe this meets WP:GNG. I have a suspicion that there is a conflict of interest going on here as well. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with this nomination. I have included multiple articles and sources for the information from highly qualified websites including NASCARS site as well. The article and information is to the point and informative. Racer12355 (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to a previous version [3]. The article on the race car driver replaced a previous article about a politician without any discussion. Suonii180 (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. Please revert to previous version as I did not use Wiki correctly due to thinking they provided me with a template. Racer12355 (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once your changes are reverted I would recommend creating Draft:Jan Evans (race car driver) and constructing your article there until it is ready.
FYI your edits are still available here RachelTensions (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Original article has been restored, but still Delete... no indication that either person (the politician, which is the original subject of this article, nor the race car driver, whom @Racer12355 overwrote the politician's article with, and was the version of the article that this AfD was based on) meets WP:GNG (or WP:POLITICIAN) RachelTensions (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the politician meets WP:NPOL. Geschichte (talk) 08:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the changes this article has undergone while under disucssion, it seems reasonable to relist it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the politican version reverted to meets WP:NPOL. While it would be nice to have more info on her, NPOL says "politicians who have held... state-wide offices" are notable, and the article says (+ references support) that "Evans served in the Nevada Assembly" and Nevada is a state in the US. Molecular Pilot 22:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes NPOL. This can probably be closed, as the original AfD was based on an old version of the article that was about a racecar driver, not the politician. Noah ^💬 02:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Helaman Jeffs

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating since the last discussion didn't attract much participation. There is no significant coverage at all of the subject. No SNGs apply. Notability is not inherited from family members. C F A 💬 22:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, Latter Day Saints, and Arizona. C F A 💬 22:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he’s an heir presumptive to a sect of a sect, with heresies within heresies. The coverage is speculative at best. We are not a place for propaganda. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to him being mentioned in numerous News articles from the likes of Fox News, The Salt Lake Tribune. BBC News etc. as being the current leader of a controversial church/cult. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You commented this last time but have yet to provide any examples of significant coverage about the subject. Being mentioned in numerous News articles (emphasis mine) does not indicate notability. C F A 💬 21:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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} 21:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Kero

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

I really sympathise with the topic of the article, but there is no coverage about him beyond him being stranded in Juba, which is mentioned in one source (not even crossing into WP:BLP1E territory). Nothing to meet WP:N or WP:SINGER at all! FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep United Nations Mission in South Sudan thought he is notable enough to make a video about him for International Day of Peace 2020 - see https://media.un.org/avlibrary/en/asset/d255/d2558965. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
see WP:SINGER for criteria for notability for singers,e.g., Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself". Your link does not establish any of that. FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary. It seems to me that the UN link along with the one already in the article (which, incidentally, also has a follow up here) meet those requirements exactly. Dorsetonian (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Sudan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Dorsetonian. Definitely borderline. Noah ^💬 02:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Różanna, Bydgoszcz County

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

This article was created by the now long-inactive Kotbot. No equivalent article exists on the Polish wikipedia. Kiwipete (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

I am also nominating the following article for deletion. This article was also created by Kotbot. There is an equivalent article on the Polish wikipedia, but it seems to indicate that this town/village no longer exists:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPLACE that says "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low" - these are all populated, legally recognised places. Even if the bot is now not active, those pages have been edited by humans and are genuinely notable per guideline. Molecular Pilot 22:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except for Łukaszewo, Inowrocław County which should be deleted as it's no longer a "legally recognised" place. I think you should open a seperate AfD for this one as it actually has merit for deletion that's different from the others in this AfD. Molecular Pilot 22:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that is the question - are these places "legally recognised places"? What source do you have? I have browsed to this TERYT website, clicked the "Przeglądanie" icon, expanded KUJAWSKO-POMORSKIE, grudziądzki and clicked Łasin (0406035). There is no mention of Boże Pole in the list of towns located in this gmina. Kiwipete (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See here: https://dane.gov.pl/pl/dataset/780,panstwowy-rejestr-nazw-geograficznych-prng/resource/30102/table that's the official polish Office of Geodesy and Cartography and also this offical list of postal numbers https://web.archive.org/web/20140222162405/https://www.poczta-polska.pl/hermes/uploads/2013/02/spispna.pdf. Różanna (the main subject of this AfD), as well as Kępa etc. appear in this list. Molecular Pilot 06:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a populated small village in Poland that does have a wikipedia article in Polish, it just wasn't properly linked pl:Różanna (powiat bydgoski). Object to the group nomination. I know these stubs aren't super helpful at this point, but at least they can direct someone to the correct Gmina and gmina seat, i don't see any value to deletion unless a place doesn't actually exist and was created in error.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Tamale

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

Only source is the bank she works at and isn't a independent source. There is no evidence of notability. The article had already been moved to and out of draft space. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Almost no independent coverage. No notability. Takipoint123 (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Some interviews in media [4], but not enough for notability. Sourcing now in the article is primary. Oaktree b (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Uganda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wish this article had stayed in draftspace awaiting sources. The only source I see is primary and non-independent. Signed, Guessitsavis (she/they) ^Talk 12:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IslamPidia

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

Despite the reference bombing, the many citations are a combination of unreliable sources, directory listings, or brief mentions of the subject (at best, a fair few don't mention it at all). Upon searching, I cannot find better available reference material, so I believe that this website is not notable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no independent and secondary sources. Mehedi Abedin 20:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pratibhasthali

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

Non notable school, Fails NSCHOOL and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of independent, reliable sources establishing notability, as it primarily consists of promotional content about the institution without substantial coverage in reputable secondary sources. --Moarnighar (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Mann

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

Highly promotional in nature and questionable WP:SUSTAINED notability Amigao (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Health and fitness, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only mentioned facts and statements about Guru Mann along with supportive news articles. Never used any promotional or advertising tone in this wikipedia article. Kindly don't delete it. Naanioffl (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Internet, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only mentioned facts and statements about Guru Mann along with supportive news articles. Never used any promotional or advertising tone in this wikipedia article. Kindly don't delete it. Naanioffl (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is poorly written and lack significant coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV Tesleemah (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Total 31 coverages are given. Please check the reference section. Naanioffl (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: You do not have to WP:REFBOMB before you establish notability. Read on citation overkill and see how you can improve the article.
Delete: Totally promotional content, the references added in the article are also not reliable. Baqi:) (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No Promotional or advertising tone was used in the article. Everything is fact ans statement which are supported by India's top news sources. Sources are 100% reliable sources like The Times of India, Zee News, IMDb, Outlook India, Mid-day, Bollywood Hungama and more. 31 reference links are given in the reference section. Kindly Check. Thanks. Naanioffl (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Celestial (Ed Sheeran song)

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

I had previously BOLDly BLAR'd this article, redirecting and merging content to Pokémon Scarlet and Violet. This was reverted with a request to take this to AfD, hence this nomination. My rationale for the original BLAR was because of a sheer lack of significant coverage on this song. There are quite literally no sources discussing impact or popularity, whether that be in the form of reviews, editorial pieces, or just opinion pieces. All that exists are news pieces discussing its announcement, and the bulk of these are primarily within the span of the first two weeks following its reveal, showing a notable WP:SUSTAINED issue, as all sources after that are announcements over its remix in the DLCs (Which don't really say that much beyond confirming that it exists and nothing more), trivial mentions, or mentions in unreliable sources.

While it's charted a lot, per WP:NSONGS, this does not outright indicate notability, only that there may be a chance at notability. The content here is relatively small, with the bulk of this article's text just being charting and release information. Per WP:NOPAGE, "Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page," and " Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page" Pokémon Scarlet and Violet's article contains information on the entire soundtrack of the game, of which Sheeran's song is included. It is overall more helpful to readers to be able to read about information relating to Celestial in a section that also covers other associated music, allowing them to get an understanding of the wider context surrounding this song, while not needing to go to a separate, unneeded split to get a full understanding of the game's soundtrack.

As a result of the above points, I don't see why this article meets individual, standalone notability, and I believe it is better off merged into Scarlet and Violet's article, where its information can be preserved and better appreciated by readers. The contents of my previous merger, as well as an additional merger of some content at the request of Ss112, who reverted my initial BLAR, are present at SV's article at present, which should help illustrate that this article is small enough to where its content can be slotted into an article subsection. While charting is not yet present, this can likely be added without being a detriment to page length by including drop-down menus that can be expanded by reader choice. I hope this helps clarify my rationale for my prior BLAR, and my current rationale for believing this is not suited for a standalone article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Video games. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Ss112, who reverted my BLAR, to offer their thoughts on this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I am very aware of WP:NSONGS and quote it regularly myself, charting this extensively—making the top 10 in the UK, the top 40 in Europe and other regions, appearing on multiple year-end charts, and being certified in at least four countries, along with the already present media coverage—makes this a truly baffling BOLD redirect and nomination. Redirecting to a Pokémon article makes it appear that the extent of its existence is being made for those games and that it achieved nothing else, and that's clearly not true. There is also still media coverage on this, and as stated at the nominator's talk page, I do not believe what is on the article at present is the extent of it. Songs also don't need to have continuing nor "sustained" relevance let alone an "impact" in the current day to have been notable in the year of their release—I don't know what that's about. WP:SUSTAINED states that short bursts of news coverage "may not sufficiently demonstrate notability", but as stated, the perhaps meagre news coverage at the time of its release is not all the song achieved nor is the extent of its notability. Ss112 18:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have clarified that I have done several BEFORE searches on this subject. This is almost certainly the extent of the coverage, at least in terms of what I could find. Almost every source I could find stated mostly the same things about release information, namely that it was made by Ed Sheeran and was featured in and made for a Pokémon game. What other information I could find was charting information and the like cited here.

Perhaps it's due to a difference between how the music side of Wikipedia handles subject notability and how I'm used to it in my subject areas, but to me SUSTAINED coverage is needed to show that this subject had a long-term impact beyond the scope of its release. The lack of real coverage I discussed in my nomination makes that difficult to see. Additionally, I feel your argument isn't really fulfilling Wikipedia:Verifiability. We need sources to verify that this song had a lasting impact, and we need sources to show those charting numbers have an impact beyond being just numbers on a list. It all comes down to sources, and these are sources that I could not find during my search per what I have already clarified in my nomination. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't feel that "my argument" fulfils WP:V? What do I need to verify in what I said? Songs do not need to have a "lasting impact" to be notable enough for Wikipedia, but as pointed out by QuietHere below, the song appears on multiple year-end lists, meaning it has had sustained success for at least two years in several regions. Oh, but those are meaningless "numbers on a list" and we should redirect to a Pokémon video game article—righto. Three keep votes and counting. Continuing to argue with everybody who disagrees does not help. Like you said, you really do not understand music notability and you've proven that twice now. Ss112 06:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per below discussion, you haven't provided any sourcing actually verifying that these numbers on charts mean anything. I've read and familiarized myself with Wikipedia:NSONGS before this discussion when formulating my rationale, and it says that these charts are only an indicator of notability, and don't actually provide it; this means that they need significant coverage to back them up, and there is very little in the way of Wikipedia:SIGCOV (As shown by Kung Fu Man below) that justifies why this needs the separation I specified with my Wikipedia:NOPAGE argument. We need sources illustrating that this song is notable to back up what charts exist, hence my WP:V argument, and we need them to show this song and its charts had an impact beyond just basic announcements, as those are just Wikipedia:ROUTINE news coverage that do not count toward subject notability. I hope this clarifies what I mean a bit. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then that comes down to how one defines "trivial". I personally don't find the coverage that exists on "Celestial" on the article and out there at present to be "trivial", although I conceded above that it might be considered "meagre" by some. WP:NSONGS also literally says "songs and singles are probably notable" if they have been the subject of these works, not that they are only notable when they have been the subject of said works. There is also notability besides charting—it has been certified. That is not covered by the first point of NSONGS, as certifications are neither "music or sales charts" nor are they always tied to such. I am not going to agree with you. I already know what your point is so it is immaterial to me how much you continue to clarify your point. Ss112 18:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per charting and certifications. If you're concerned about SUSTAINED, it is worth noting that the charts span multiple years, meaning it appeared on those charts for at least a few months. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the number of national charts here is astounding. Songs don't chart like this globally and then fail to scrounge up a handful of GNG-satisfying sources. It's near logistically impossible. Sergecross73 msg me 00:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:SOURCESMUSTEXIST. I did multiple Wikipedia:BEFOREs for this and turned up nothing. I'm not making this rationale assuming there's no sources, I genuinely found nothing beyond what I mentioned in my nom. If significant coverage large enough to satisfy both notability and Wikipedia:NOPAGE is found, then I'm willing to withdraw, but I make this nom only out of a severe concern for a lack of actual coverage outside of its charts, which don't indicate notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This album charted in 20+ counties and went Gold in 4 of them. That's extremely mainstream. I'm trying to think of a video game equivalent so you can understand how unlikely of a scenario what you're proposing in this nomination is to the music Wikiproject members. Probably the equivalent of nominating a Bravely Default or a Paper Mario level-game for deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 01:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point of confusion there is that with games there's still at least something, you know, *said* in terms of analysis, reaction or at least anything. Even with games, just winning an award alone would mean as much as the reviews discussing the title. It's jarring to see it in contrast to the hurdles with fictional characters, where the closest parallel to it would be "did you see how much media that character appeared in? They must be notable!"

Why is charting alone sufficient when we demand so much more from every other aspect related to the video game project?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that charting alone is enough, it's just the logistical absurdity in situations like this, where a song is a global hit, but editors think that there aren't a few articles out there somewhere. Maybe a more apt comparison is when misguided editors talk about nominating video game icons like Mario or Sonic for deletion because they chose to ignore their obvious massive legacy in favor of a poor Google search result? (That's probably a bit generous to Sheeran's song here, but still.) Sergecross73 msg me 10:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Serge, that's just WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST though, isn't it? But with what I was able to find at all, that's just enough for barely a paragraph, and all of it ties to Scarlet and Violet.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I love citing that essay too, but I don't think it should be a substitute for using common sense either. How does a song get played prominently in 20+ countries, get certified Gold in 4 separate countries, and make multiple year-end charts, and not have 2-3 sources written about it? It's logistically impossible. I think this is one of those situations where nominators get so caught up in the letter of the policies/guidelines that they forget the actual purpose of what we're trying to do here. When we create guidelines to prevent trivial, non-notable items of music from having articles, were they really trying to eliminate content like this? Are we really saying that a massive pop star collaborated with arguably one of the biggest franchises in existence, and its output, while a global commercial success, isn't notable? I don't like invoking WP:IAR, but if the guidelines miss the mark this badly... Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that Bravely Default and Paper Mario actually have significant coverage attached to them. I can Google one of their games and find tons of reviews, information on the game's development with a bit of digging. I've dug a fair bit into this subject and already told you about the results. Notability cannot be assumed from statistics; this argument so far has come across to me as an argument of "It has to be important," rather than something actually grounded in any form of guideline or policy. If notability came from solely statistics, then BFDI would have an article by now with how many views that series has racked up on Youtube.

Just because it's unlikely or seems inconceivable doesn't mean it can't happen. I'd recommend doing a BEFORE before making assumptions on the subject's breadth of coverage, as if there is actually coverage I missed, then you'd be able to more effectively disprove some of my arguments, which mostly hinge on the breadth of coverage I have already discussed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know of that difference, it was just a reference point, not a 1:1 comparison. Sergecross73 msg me 10:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pokemon Scarlet and Violet. Doing a hard dig found really not a whole lot for discussion: a review by the Harvard Crimson, though this is a student paper. There's also three links ([5] [6] [7] that discuss Toby Fox remixing it for Pokemon Scarlet and Violet, one of the first mods for that game removing it, and people getting DMCA'd because it's the end credits song. The rest is just announcements about the song and video with some breakdowns of the video, but no commentary for notability. Additionally couldn't find discussion observing it on the charts. While there can be a reception section built here, it really hinges a lot on whether the Harvard Crimson is usable as a source.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't accept The Harvard Crimson as a source, because students are not music critics. Regardless, I do not feel that we need a reception section. Ss112 06:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without it then we have a WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument that isn't held up, as there's barely enough meat here for 3 sentences tying it to a video game, and a light blurb about inspiration. That's not a lot of indication of stand alone notability in practice. Even the one Rolling Stone reference I found said little. Notability needs to be demonstrated, not just assumed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I'm going to go with a merge; all the arguments up here as I pointed out rely on "it charted heavily, so there must be sources, so it's notable". While on paper that sounds feasible, we've seen plenty of cases with other subjects such as fictional characters where it is not i.e. (Diddy Kong, Odie), and as stated above the material that does show notability is tied directly to those games.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've spent so much time arguing the absurdity of the nomination that I hadn't bothered digging into the sourcing. Not sure if this is another case of setting the bar too high? Because I'm seeing pretty mainstream coverage.

Granted, they're not the deepest of dives, but they're dedicated articles by extremely reputable sources approved by WP:VG/S, WP:RSMUSIC, and WP:RSP, and that's all that the GNG requires. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NSONG with significant national charting मल्ल (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I realize that continuing to debate solely about sourcing is just going to wind up with a lot of mixed and very heated opinions, so I feel it best to change gears to the other major concern with this article: size. I do feel the WP:NOPAGE rationale I addressed above has been sidelined a bit by the sourcing discussions, and it does address both sides' concerns, and may be a viable way of addressing this in a bit more cut and dry manner. I've outlined my NOPAGE concerns above already, so I don't see a need to restate them again, but this would preserve literally all of the page's information, without losing anything in the process, in a section where it can be adequately discussed alongside other music relating to SV. This article is unlikely to expand further and perfectly coverable in another page, so why not cover the information there? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but notice your user page suggests you're working on a Pokemon WP:GOODTOPIC. While I appreciate when the GA/GT process motivates editors to improve content, I equally strongly oppose editors attempts to use it as a rationale to delete articles. So if that is what this is all about, I object to its deletion/merger even stronger. I find that approach to be highly contradictory to the prospect of building an encyclopedia. The GA/GT process is not a metric for subjects having stand alone articles. Sergecross73 msg me 02:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just agree with notability standards that are applied site wide that I believe should be upheld. I'm working on Pokémon Good Topics, but if a topic doesn't pan out, it doesn't pan out. Even a brief view at my user page shows that the topic I'm most actively working on isn't even related to Celestial, so I don't see how these two things are even correlated unless you want to directly accuse me of unfounded claims that I'm acting in bad faith. Directly opposing my suggestions solely on a bad faith assumption is an even worse standard to uphold, especially as a site administrator. Please keep this strictly to policy-based discussions, and if you want to accuse me of bad faith, please do so on my talk page, as this kind of thing is not within the scope of this AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed countless other reasons why I object to this absurd nomination beyond this hypothesis. This was merely an attempt to get understand why you're pushing so hard on this, as I do run upon this misguided mindset on occasion. If it's not true in your case, then so be it, everything else I said still stands (along with everyone else so far.) Sergecross73 msg me 10:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the BBC and Rolling Stone sources above are enough for this to meet WP:GNG and this charted across the world besides. Deletion is not necessary imho. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources listed above are more than enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per others, it does seem notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for Woody

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎ per WP:SK#4. ✗plicit 13:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Order of precedence in Northern Ireland

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

This appears to be WP:OR, on the basis that several substantial changes have happened since 1992, such as the Good Friday Agreement, and no official updates have been made. It is impossible to say if the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill will remove people from the list completely or remove a let people stay on the list... The topic seems to be esoteric, and unlikely to be of encyclopedic value. SqrtLog (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: ~~Politicians~~ and Northern Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reunions (Philippine TV series)

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

Declined at WP:AFC moved to main space regardless, fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added some sources, and I think it's notable because it was one of Q TV's most impactful shows. It also got several nominations both locally and internationally. D-Flo27 (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NTV with sources added to the page by D-Flo27. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Coimbra

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Desserts (film)

(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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has a BEFORE been performed?? No. " His first short film, Desserts, won the Silver Bear at the 1999 Berlin Film Festival." (https://www.torinofilmfest.org/en/17-torino-film-festival/film/desserts/684/) Plus multiple results on GBooks. Unsourced articles need sources not deletion. Willing to improve this later. (https://www.sansebastianhorrorfestival.eus/1999/ing/desserts.htm http://film-directory.britishcouncil.org/desserts for verification) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chang Jiang: The Great River of China

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

Article about a short documentary film, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not always automatically notable enough for a Wikipedia article just because it exists, and must pass certain specific notability criteria to qualify for inclusion. But the only notability claim on offer here is that the film exists, and the only footnote is a Rotten Tomatoes entry that offers no tomato rating and lists no film reviews that could be pulled over to start building passage of WP:GNG.
I had to remove one other footnote, which was an unrecoverable deadlink to a site I cannot determine whether it would have been GNG-worthy or not, and a Google search found only primary sources and wikimirrors rather than anything GNG-worthy.
As the film was a Chinese-Japanese coproduction, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with skills in those languages can find coverage in those languages that wouldn't have turned up by searching on the English title, but just existing isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt a film from having to have any GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, China, and Japan. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of IMAX films#Chang Jiang: The Great River of China (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I recommend adding an anchor to the "Chang Jiang: The Great River of China" row in the table in List of IMAX films.
  I found one strong source about the film:
  1. Monk, Katherine (2001-02-20). "Chang Jiang IMAX film skirts dam controversy" (pages 1 and 2). Vancouver Sun. ProQuest 242586288. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-10-28. Retrieved 2024-10-28 – via Newspapers.com.
    This is an 872-word review of the film. The review notes: "While this movie, a Japan-China co-production, does show us the massive dam footings and retaining walls, it fails to explain what it all means. ... It could have engaged an eager audience with a valuable discussion about engineering, fluid dynamics, environmental sustainability and the river's rich history -- things that echo the actual displays at Science World. ... While we do get valuable scenic shots of what the river looks like now in glorious detail, we don't hear much about what it looked like before the deforestation in the pursuit of Chairman Mao's "Great Leap Forward," nor do we hear much about the river's key role in establishing sedentary communities. ... This movie is only halfway there. However, combined with the accompanying exhibit -- China! 7000 Years of Innovation -- and the host of educational materials on hand, Chang Jiang successfully opens the conversation for an audience of impressionable young people who will be forced to carry the burden of progress long after we're gone."
  This insufficient to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. One more source would allow the subject to pass the notability guideline. I was unable to find the Chinese name or Japanese name of the film which would have helped with finding sources in those languages. Cunard (talk) 08:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect suggested by Cunard seems to be a sensible ATD given the source presented. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC) (Other sources for verification include: https://www.giantscreencinema.com/film_database/chang-jiang-the-great-river-of-china/ )[reply]

Somequest

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

This developer does not meet WP:NCORP, and their games are not individually notable.

The PlayStation Blog article is a primary listing of products with no commentary. Using Google's advanced search to filter to Polish-language sources only brings up business databases, which are not significant coverage (see WP:CORPTRIV).

Their debut game, Xposed, received reviews from PlayStation Country, a WordPress website, and a short review from the small site Video Chums. Their games have received multiple reviews by Game Slush Pile, a blog run by one person with unknown credentials. The announcement from Gaming Lyfe appears to be a republished press release or other unusable primary source. Celebrities Hacked received a short announcement from Push Square, a reliable source.

A version of the article with similar sourcing on Polish Wikipedia has been draftified. QuietCicada chirp 16:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Poland. QuietCicada chirp 16:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from failing WP:NCORP, most sources are either store pages, redirect pages of Kotaku or reviews. It totally fails in demonstrating any notability for it to have an article. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Polish Wikipedia article only consisted of the table and without the additional written sentences. Sceeegt (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not pass WP:NCORP. OceanHok (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OceanHok. Fails WP:NCORP. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Tiny developer without wide recognition. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Chandola

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

WP:BLP of a tech entrepreneur cum political candidate, not properly sourced as meeting inclusion criteria for tech entrepreneurs or political candidates. This was created in August, so it was clearly intended as a campaign brochure for his electoral candidacy -- but candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and must demonstrate that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons.
But his "career background" as a tech entrepreneur is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, but for one article in a suburban community hyperlocal that isn't enough to vault him over GNG all by itself -- and otherwise what's left for reliable sourcing is just the bog-standard run of the mill "party selects candidate" stuff that every candidate for every party in every electoral district can always show, not evincing any reason why his candidacy would qualify as a special case of more enduring significance than all the other candidates who failed to win the election yesterday.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable without better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree per reasons above, and the fact that Chandola has now lost the election, so notability through being an elected MLA cannot be established Epluribusunumyall (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Please do what is suitable with this page. Apandeyhp89 (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Nicosia Israeli embassy bombing

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

The reason I'm requesting this article be deleted is:

As far as a bombing on the embassy, the embassy wasn't bombed and the explosive went off 30 meters away and nowhere near the embassy
According to the sources themselves (Times of Israel and AP), Cyprus Police never stated that the target was the embassy building thus implying as such is Original Research
From my research no charges or at least no convictions have come out from this event and as such we don't actually know what the motives were nor what the outcome of this investigation was.
Im assuming that due to the event not picking up any traction except from the day it was reported, there was likely a lot of sensationalization from media organisations due to Cyprus and Israel's relationship and the timing of it, happening less than a few weeks after October 7th.ShovelandSpade (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, Israel, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to the OR issues, the bombing would require sustained analysis or study beyond news coverage. Right now, it's just a WP:News article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet very early for such. This event was on October 21, 2023. gidonb (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (selectively) into Cyprus–Israel relations. Let's work by the points, nice touch for an intro. #1 agreed, this does not help notability. #2 the newspapers tied the bomb to the embassy so not really OR. #3 agreed, this does not help notability either. #4 We do not know that either. In conclusion, a minor event including by some of the criteria raised. No article on Hewiki. Also, seems entirely missing at Cyprus–Israel relations, so an improper SPINOUT. Best briefly mentioned at the parent. gidonb (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Issue is nobody actually confirmed the embassy was a target and Cyprus isnt new to pyrotechnic incidents whether it be the football, political events, hooliganism in general etc. ShovelandSpade (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore shouldn't remain an article, now and in the future. The press did tie this to the embassy consistently. Also claiming it might be unrelated is OR. We follow the RS. gidonb (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Press tied it due to proximity, not any official statement (Either from the Cypriot or Israeli governments). As most articles themselves in the titles say "near the Israeli embassy" or something along those lines, I'm addressing this with regards to merging it to Cyprus Israel relations. ShovelandSpade (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Press says near the embassy and that is what we will write. NEVER ENGAGE IN OR, disregardful of its direction! You are warning against one direction of OR and engage in the opposite OR. Perhaps only to make a point. Both directions, however, are bad and should not add or remove information from the article space. gidonb (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im saying were not informed enough to make a definitive statement and definitely not enough to include in any article, the AP article clearly states "Police did not say whether the bombing some 30 meters (98 feet) from the Israeli Embassy was connected to the war in Gaza." Surely then adding it to an article related to embassy attacks would make it OR. I just think generally it lacks verifiability to even be listed anywhere. ShovelandSpade (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 15:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the press agencies (RS) tie this to the embassy we should too. Second guessing the press is OR. gidonb (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Press ties it to 30m away from the embassy and gives no motive as to the attackers. ShovelandSpade (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You keep repeating the same point under my opinion even though already responded before. Referring you to my previous answers. gidonb (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. Event with no deaths, injuries, or damage, and no WP:LASTING impact. मल्ल (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. No WP:EFFECT and also issues as mentioned by nom that the embassy was actually the target. LibStar (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cheung Chau fishball

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

Content has been merged into Fish_ball#Hong_Kong_and_Macau UKWikiGuy (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. UKWikiGuy (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmalya Ghosh

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

WP:BLP, identified as possible WP:UPE, about a scientist not clearly shown as passing inclusion criteria. This was started in the creator's personal sandbox, going through two rounds of needing to have categories removed from it on WP:USERNOCAT grounds, before the creator (a WP:SPA with no prior edit history apart from this article) tried to move it to a "user" profile, following which it was moved to draftspace by an established editor on the grounds that no user account existed under the username Nirmalya Ghosh -- but then the creator moved it directly to mainspace themselves, following which there's been a full edit war over redraftifying and remainspacing it.
Paid editors, however, are required to use the WP:AFC process so that their articles can be reviewed for compliance with Wikipedia's content rules -- but given the fact that there's already been an edit war over what namespace it was located in, I don't see the point in just moving it back to draftspace again without discussion. Obviously if consensus does land on moving it back to draftspace, it should be move-protected to prevent further edit-warring, but obviously consensus may also just lean toward straight deletion. Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and India. Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak Keep Page reads as WP:PROMO. Mostly sources are poor to unreliable with passing mention and entries and some are primary workplace sources. and does not show any significant achievements noteworthy nationally and internationally to satisfy notability about the subject role as physician. Fails WP:NPROF. RangersRus (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC) Meets criteria Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#C3. I am not opposed to Draftify either but with move-protected for improvement with reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Comment~~. Would not Fellow of Indian Academy of Sciences and Fellow of National Academy of Sciences, India meet PROF? Espresso Addict (talk) 07:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked the sources and the two elected fellowships check out, which meets PROF. There is some indept detail on his research at the G.G Stokes Award citation [8] which might be used to improve the article. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the paid question, the user id of the creator is the same as the name of lab, so I'd assume someone in the lab such as a PhD student, rather than a typical paid contribution. It would be very helpful if Bionap would explicitly declare any connection. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. May need improving per WP:UPE or other COI, but being elected to a National Academy is explicitly listed for WP:NPROF#C3. Cyanochic (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: UPE/COI issues aside, please focus on the notability of the subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Gscholar shows over 5700 citations and the two learned society memberships, would seem to be a pass for PROF. Oaktree b (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. His publication record is on the borderline, but the G.G. Stokes Award award reinforces it significantly with #C2 pass. Note, it looks like XOR'easter cleaned up the page which some earlier voters saw. I am voting on the current version. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kazi Rafiqul Alam

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

Previously speedy deleted and repeatedly recreated, but the last speedy deletion (A7) was declined. Article is heavily promotional with no indication of notability, with the first source clearly being paid promotion, and the second one being from the company he is the director of.

Doing a WP:BEFORE, many sources appear to talk about a homonym engaged in education and humanitarian work ([9], [10]), although the stated date of birth clearly shows that these are two different people. The one this article is about is said to be born in 1995, while the other apparently worked to set up a cancer hospital between 1994 and 1999. Yet another homonym appears to be the director of Alokito Bangladesh.

All in all, no indication of sources that could help meet WP:GNG for now. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Bangladesh. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this page reads like an highlight piece. Taking a look at the logs, it might be worth salting as well. Signed, Guessitsavis (she/they) ^Talk 14:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, vanity page.-KH-1 (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Chapman (murderer)

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

The crime received some contemporaneous news coverage but I don't think it meets the lasting significance standard of WP:NEVENT. gnu 57 21:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and England. gnu 57 21:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Haven't done too deep of a dive yet, but searching on Google books there does seem to be coverage from reliable sources continuing with sigcov, using it as a sort of case study of internet crime. Should probably be renamed Murder of Ashleigh Hall though, since I don't see a particular reason to focus on the perp in this case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG. But rename to Murder of Ashleigh Hall. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like more comments about the sources found in the Google search.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight 971

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: Other than databases, there exists no reliable secondary sources (significant) coverage of the event, no in-depth coverage, no (sustained) continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects nor long-term impacts on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Russia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into List of sole survivors of aviation accidents and incidents catalogue for this accident needs to be created there using the bare bones of this article. @Aviationwikiflight Lolzer3k 14:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1950s. Accident is covered there as well. Meltdown627 (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1950s. Tragic, like all plane crashes, I'm not seeing how this passes WP:NEVENT. ONly two sources are the Air Disaster database and this link to the Aviation Safety Wikibase. (UGC). There's more detail in that Aeroflot accident article, so anybody looking for information on this particular flight would be best served by it. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women's U21 Three Nations Cup 2024

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in a single reliable source Joeykai (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mongolia and Oceania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Glorified friendly matches featuring tiny teams. Geschichte (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Karrar Hussain

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

He's a young doctor with six years of experience. The Donald J. Cohen fellowship is for young professionals. He doesn't have significant coverage. Maria Gemmi (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and India. Maria Gemmi (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete with no option for draftifying. I had debated an A7 speedy deletion, but while the fellowship asserts significance, it doesn't demonstrate notability, nor is WP:GNG met. —C.Fred (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended my !vote to make clear that I no longer think draftifying is a valid option for this article. This looks more like a vanity piece and should be deleted outright. —C.Fred (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong/speedy delete, does not meet notability ... and the author needs to be warned about removing templates and the like, as there is no AFD template anywhere now. (PS, I wrote Donald J. Cohen -- being a Cohen fellow does not confer notability.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia The page creator had moved the page to draft space before removing the AfD template. That move has since been undone, and the AfD template has been restored. —C.Fred (talk) 13:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, C.Fred; it was all over the place while I was trying to enter my delete. Also, someone with the tools needs to look at Draft:Syed Shahzaman to see if a COI situation needs to be addressed. And similar is happening at Hill Top Educational Institute -- hard to track with all the moves, but it looks like a history of problematic editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting, this fellowship isn't even at Yale: "The Donald J Cohen Fellowship Programme uses a blended learning format through a virtual platform and online technology" (in Dubai) -- here is a past year's description from the year it was held in Paris. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychiatry and Jammu and Kashmir. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks significant coverage in WP:RS Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, no significant coverage or published papers - Arjayay (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International

AfDs for this article:

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]
As original author 20 years ago I agree with the deletion. Secretlondon (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, no outstanding delete opinions. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zhongli (Genshin Impact)

AfDs for this article:

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

I still refuse to believe that this character is notable. [11] This source is the only one that is WP:SIGCOV, but it is weak. Sources like these [12] [13] [14] [15] doesn't help SIGCOV, but is WP:GAMECRUFT (It isn't similar like Tingle or Ashley Graham). I'm not sure dumping all Chinese sources and listicles/rankings is helpful either. It looks like it was built to impress editors at first glance, like, Woah, that's a lot of sources; it must be notable. I am not saying this in an offensive way. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What do you think about all the scholarly papers that are cited in the article? Those seem to be what is propping up its notability and what made it survive the AfD last time. Are they SIGCOV? I think a source analysis is in order here, just dismissing them due to being "Chinese" won't fly here. All languages can be used as sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SIGCOV explicitly states that sources do not have to be in English to establish notability of an article's subject. Not sure why this is being nominated again for similar reasons as the first nomination but generally, the use of scholarly articles and secondary sources that discuss the characater in depth generally meets the established notability criteria for a fictional character. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 14:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I also don't quite understand the nominator's rationale here. Even if they're not in English, they're still SIGCOV and count for notability. Being foreign language doesn't immediately disqualify the source's use. Nothing has changed since the last nomination, so I don't see a reason to hold another discussion on a rationale that led to a keep last time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the last discussion and nominators faulty rationale. I might change my stance if an actual source analysis is provided, rather than tossing out all of the sources for simply not being in English. λ NegativeMP1 16:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Pokelego999 - The article was Kept by strong consensus less than a year ago, so renominating it so quickly requires a much stronger rationale and source analysis than what is presented in this nomination. Rorshacma (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I guess this is 100% consensus now. I apologize for pointing out the Chinese sources. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 18:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sergio Quintana

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

A CV-type article which substantially remains that originally contributed by WP:SPA SQuins 12 years ago. Sources can be found to confirm the subject as a working journalist, and he was working at KTVU TV when they obtained a 2009 Peabody Award, but that doesn't seem sufficient to demonstrate individual notability. AllyD (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and California. AllyD (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Reasons to delete: WP:AUTOBIO, almost entirely primary sources. Reasons to keep: anchor in a major media market for a big 3 network, member of a team that has won a Peabody Award, broke some big stories. Ping me if you find better sources. Bearian (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient TL

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "Remove deletion tag, I explain the reasoning a separate message. It does not mean that the article cannot be improved". PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology, France, Switzerland, England, Wales, Missouri, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am a little bit lost here, what does PROD reason means? Why citations do not count or is there something I overlooked? Sorry, I just try to provide sufficient evidence to retain the journal, but I need to know what is actually required. Besides, I suggest putting this at least on hold because the journal has currently got a new editor (this is not me) and will move to a new publication platform (https://www.soap2.ch/) with all the old articles properly tagged with DOI. GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid the deletion of the entry for Ancient TL (ATL) from Wikipedia.com, I am providing evidence of the journal's relevance. First, a little bit of background: Ancient TL is the open-source and free-of-charge luminescence and electron-spin resonance dating community journal. The journal is run by volunteers from the academic community. The few articles published yearly are mainly of technical (such as conversion factors) nature of relevance to the experts in the field. Beyond, the journal publishes abstracts about completed theses in the field (source: http://ancienttl.org). The publications have no DOI (yet), and the journal needs to be indexed, which is related to the low number of publications yearly. Given the following evidence, The journal is of utmost relevance to the scientific community.

According to Google Scholar, used in combination with the software Harzing's Publish or Perish (8.16.4748.9050 (2024.10.10.1451) (please double-check using those tools) the journal has received >12250 total citations in peer-reviewed journals with an average of 260 citations per year.
The currently three most highly cited papers are: (1) G Adamiec, MJ Aitken (1998): 1701 citations, (2) G Guérin, N Mercier, G Adamiec (2011): 1276 citations, (3) S Kreutzer, C Schmidt, MC Fuchs, M Dietze, M Fischer, ... (2012): 345 citations
The journal has an ISSN and is listed in https://search.worldcat.org/title/85448412?oclcNum=85448412
The journal is also listed in https://zdb-katalog.de/list.xhtml?asc=false&t=Ancient+TL
The journal is listed in university library systems, such as Heidelberg University: https://katalog.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/cgi-bin/search.cgi?query=band%3Auw67801411&sess=b23f1762df67e79fdf73cfc0308ccf83&vr=1&mark=&spell=
The journal is frequently cited by high-impact and listed journals. A few examples:
Nature communications: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-51546-9 (three articles from Ancient TL cited in the context of the technical part of the luminescence dating; supplement)
Scientific reports: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-69913-3 (six times cited in the supplement regarding the luminescence dating: -> Supplementary Information 2)
Science: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ade4248 (five times in the supplement regarding the luminescence dating -> Anc. TL)
Geochronology: https://gchron.copernicus.org/preprints/gchron-2024-19/ (four times, paper currently in open discussion)
Quaternary Geochronology: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871101424001067 (two times)
... please extend this list by randomly picking a recent international publication with luminescence/ESR ages that went through a proper peer-review (I guess not all have cited articles from Ancient TL, but most certainly).

@RandyKitty if this is not enough evidence, I may ask to provide actual arguments why the given evidence is not sufficient. Thank you! GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did a Google scholar search on "Ancient TL" and it shows quite a few papers with > 50 citations, some more than 100. I think this is enough to demonstrate that it is not fluff. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: nobody says that this is "fluff", but that is not enough to make a journal notable in the WP sense. That articles from the journal have racked up some citations is nothing out of the ordinary and certainly not enough to pass NJournals (and GNG even less). --Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Randykitty I understand and see your point, but citations are the currency in academia. Why should authors, alleged experts in their field, cite a journal in peer-reviewed papers (and reviewers and editors agree) in journals such as Nature (communications) or Science regularly if what is published in this journal has no significance to the field? At least the high-impact journals are somewhat sensitive to non-essential references and frequently request their removal during the review process. Where do you draw the line then? Or differently formulated: What do you accept as evidence of the significance of a journal? The numbers I quoted are high in our field, but of course, compared to author disciplines such as medicine or chemistry, they are of little relevance. GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that this is the threshold for notability: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

I'm not sure how one would demonstrate this for every article published in the journal, but perhaps some examples help. Take the following article: "Huntley, D.J., Baril, M.R., 1997. The K content of the K-feldspars being measured in optical dating or in thermoluminescence dating. Ancient TL, v.15, n.1, 1997." Google Scholar registers 716 citations of this article. Looking at the first page of results, citing articles come from reputable sources (Quaternary Geochronology, Quaternary Science Reviews, Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Boreas, Science, Radiation Measurements, Science, Nature) and citing articles are themselves highly cited (cited by 662, 25, 63, 1189, 762, 546, 843, 169, 54, 683). Another example: "Kreutzer, S., et al., 2012. Introducing an R package for luminescence dating analysis. Ancient TL, v.30, n.1, 2012" This registers 345 citations. The first page of results show citing articles that are published in Nature Reviews, Science, Ancient TL, Science, Nature, Science Nature Ecology & Evolution, Nature, Quaternary Geochronology, and Quaternary Science Reviews. These citing articles are cited 169, 142, 158, 169, 341, 22, 26, 4 (published this year), 116, and 25 times.

These articles are receiving significant coverage (highly cited), in reliable sources (Science, Nature, Quaternary Geochronology, Nature Reviews, and so on), that are independent of the source (with one exception, these citations are coming from other journals). One could replicate this analysis on many highly cited articles published in Ancient TL.

Perhaps some users may interpret this threshold differently, but I argue that one could reasonable argue that Ancient TL meets this definition. TroutbeckRise (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this discussion is taking place at all. You want to remove a post about a journal created by some of the best researchers in the world, whose work on the development of luminescent methods has a great impact on many areas of our lives? The methods described in the journal are used in archaeology, geology, conservation, mining, palaeontology, biology, etc. Since when has it been most important whether a journal is cited? The most important thing is that it is read, and the methods described therein are used on a daily basis in hundreds of laboratories around the world and in the process of building new and ever more perfect equipment. Furthermore, you want to remove a respected journal without understanding the impact it has on science, and you easily allow sites promoting the idea of a flat earth to exist!!! You probably need to read the definition of the word ‘encyclopaedia’ because I have the impression that you lack basic knowledge in this area.

Artur Ginter, head of Laboratory of Luminescence Dating and Conservation of Artifacts, University of Lodz, Poland 91.228.32.177 (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote this without been logged in. ArturGinter (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you're new here, so I recommend that you read some of the policies and guidelines that I have linked to with a "welcome" template on your talk page. I may not know the meaning of the work "encyclopaedia", but you clearly don't know how things work here. One important piece to read, BTW, is WP:AGF, thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply in no way refers to my post. I've been using Wikipedia since 2002 so certainly longer than you've had an account here, but I don't know what relevance that has. Content from the Ancient TL can only be cited by a small group of scientists in the world (because the rest don't understand much of it) so it's not surprising that statistically there is less of it than comments on flat earth and chemitrails. In the following article from Nature, Ancient TL is quoted 6 or 7 times. ‘The age of the hominin fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, and the origins of the Middle Stone Age’ Daniel Richter, Rainer Grün, Renaud Joannes-Boyau, Teresa E. Steele, Fethi Amani, Mathieu Rué, Paul Fernandes, Jean-Paul Raynal, Denis Geraads, Abdelouahed Ben-Ncer, Jean-Jacques Hublin & Shannon P. McPherron. In Nature ... which is the most important journal in the world, where only the best go, and usually once in a lifetime. How many times have your articles been cited in Nature or Science? ArturGinter (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While you may have been reading WP for a long time, your ignorance of policies and guidelines here is evident. And how long I've been here or how many times I've been cited by Nature is irrelevant (and as a matter of principle I don't reveal any personal info, so I'm not confirming nor denying ever having been cited by that or any other journal). Comment on the issues, not the editor. In any case, your description of the journal being noticed by only a small group of people is basically an argument against it being notable in the WP sense. --Randykitty (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"your description of the journal being noticed by only a small group of people is basically an argument against it" - I did't wrote that. The journal is not noticed by small group of people but a small group of people can cite it in their articles.

However, referring to the substance, I suggest tracing the pillars of Wikipedia:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary - the entry is not a dictionary entry

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought - the Ancient TL is a peer-reviewed journal and not the result of private research or ideas

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion - none of the subsections of this pillar apply to the Ancient TL

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files - the entry on Ancient TL contains none of the above

Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site - the entry on Ancient TL does not include any of these

Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal - the entry on Ancient TL contains only an abridged description of the journal and therefore does not fulfil the criteria above

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - not applicable at all

Wikipedia is not a newspaper - also not applicable

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - also not applicable

Wikipedia is not censored - ‘Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and using a neutral point of view) or the law of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted). However, because most edits are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may be visible to readers, for a time, before being detected and removed. ' - Ancient TL does not violate any of these rules.

If the entry on Ancient TL does not violate any Wikipedia rules on what basis should the page be removed? ArturGinter (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ArturGinter, the relevant Wikipedia policy is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is what the WP:NOTABILITY guideline is based on. I know that Wikipedia's notability criteria can feel very arbitrary, so I want to acknowledge how frustrating that can be for a new Wikipedia editor. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I didnt understand you well. Could do wrtite me exactly which subsection of the WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:NOTABILITY entry about Ancient TL does not meet? ArturGinter (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the contention of many in this discussion (including the original nominator but also several of the Keep voters) is that Ancient TL fails the "General notability guideline" (WP:GNG), which is the most important subsection of the WP:NOTABILITY guideline. In other words, the contention is that Ancient TL has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Ancient TL. You may also find the section of WP:NOTABILITY on why the notability guideline exists to be useful context. Suriname0 (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nature Journal is not a reliable source? What about Springer? ScienceDirect? Ancient TL is cited in thousands articles from all over the world. Its not enought for wikipedia? Could you please write me how many reliable sources have been found to confirm the flatness of the earth or chemitrails? Because there are some pages on wiki about it. 5.173.210.79 (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a faculty researcher within the field of luminescence dating, I confirm that this journal is notable within our community. If the benchmark for notability is that a journal is known for publishing scholarly research in the spirit of GNG, Ancient TL plainly fits that definition. As detailed in a previous reply, a significant majority of all peer-reviewed journal articles which employ luminescence dating rely upon and cite work that was published in Ancient TL. Ancient TL also has historical importance for our field in that it, along with Radiation Protection and Dosimetry, was one of the first publications dedicated to this subfield. The scope of this journal is more restricted than most (usually involving technological advances germane to dating specialists) but the review process and editorial oversight are robust, and many individual articles are foundational to our field and highly cited. Finally, it should be re-emphasized that this journal is not predatory by any metric, but is a publication run by the scientific community which it serves. It is run on a volunteer basis and is diamond open access: it charges no fees to authors or readers. TroutbeckRise (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)— TroutbeckRise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: I appreciate your dedication to this journal. However, one requirement of WP is that statements need to be supported by independent reliable sources. Statements from WP editors unfortunately don't count as such. Unless you can come up with such sources (again, independent of the subject), your !vote will likely be ignored by the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty Also here, I do agree, but I like to know why what is provided is not independent? We have absolutely no influence on numbers generated by Google Scholar or the other author's and journals decisions to cite work from a certain articles. GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that none of those articles is about the journal. If this journal is so crucial to its field, how come there are no sources about that? Why is the journal not indexed in Scopus or the Science Citation Index or, indeed, any other index (not even less selective ones)? I understand that you'd like your journal to have an article here, but so far you have not provided any hard evidence. If even you editors yourselves can't find such evidence, it likely doesn't exist. --Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But perhaps the interpretation that inclusion within journal indices is the only viable metric of reputability is a narrow interpretation and one that is not codified into WP guidelines? Citation counts and the reputability of journals which cite Ancient TL articles are both independent of the source. Is there consensus that these metric do not count? If so, is this codified somewhere? I apologize for my ignorance here, but it strikes me that this singular reliance upon whether a journal is indexed is overly restrictive. TroutbeckRise (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps @GeoGammaMorphologe and I are demonstrating Criterion 2.b of the WP:Notability criteria: the journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources AND "the only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journals are via bibliographic databases and citation indices, such as...Google Scholar." TroutbeckRise (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A little context might be useful here. The notability criterion used for academic journals are controversial e.g. see this discussion, or the tens of thousands of words spilled on the talk page of NJOURNALS. The fundamental criteria used to determine if a topic should have a standalone Wikipedia article is WP:GNG: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." However, using the general notability guideline for journals is contentious because very, very few journals meet these criteria. Academics generally spend little time writing about their journals in depth (which would comprise significant coverage), and when they do there is often a COI (i.e. the writer lacks independence, such as an editor summarizing a journal's publication history in a retrospective or a "meta" note published with a journal issue). Using GNG isn't necessarily a problem, but many editors want looser standards for journal notability, for example because journals publish the reliable sources we often cite on Wikipedia and it serves readers to have information about the publishers of those cited sources. For that reason, editors write essays (like WP:NJOURNALS) that attempt to formulate alternative criteria. I want to emphasize that the criteria in that essay (such as C1, about indexing in selective database indices) is a frequently-used guide but is itself contentious. Note that C1 and C2 are an attempt to lower the bar so that even academic journals that don't meet GNG might be accepted as standalone Wikipedia articles! If Ancient TL doesn't meet that lower bar (or WP:GNG itself), it may make sense to mention it on other Wikipedia articles where it is relevant... or to recreate the article in the future if it receives more attention from academics. You are likely correct to focus on C2 here. C2 is tricky because it's hard to tell what is a significant number of citations in a journal's particular subfield. Suriname0 (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that clarification, @Suriname0. That is quite helpful and interesting. I suppose I would then only say that citation counts mentioned in my previous comment are generally considered high in geosciences and archaeometry. And then given the ambiguity involved, perhaps it would be best to err on the side of preserving the entry, especially given the broader context mentioned by @GeoGammaMorphologe. TroutbeckRise (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty OK, now, I understand. Thank you for making this clear. In fact not having this listing was so far one of the major critics the journal received from its own community. But I also suggest looking up **how** such indices are generated and **how** a journal becomes listed.
Here are a few examples regarding ATL:
- ATL articles do not have a DOI simply because the membership in the Web of Science, for instance, has a (low) price tag. In the past, readers had to pay for the print version of ATL; this was abolished in 2014 (I think) in favour of an online-only version. However, with funds, there was no money for the DOI registration. This situation will now change with the new publication platform, and the affiliation of the new editor will cover the costs.
- To get indexed and receive an impact factor, you have to fulfil a certain number of criteria, for instance, a certain number of publications per year. ATL was consistently below that threshold, but this is related to the journal's nature and purely non-profit nature not its significance in the field. Even for professional publishers with all their resources, it takes years to get a journal indexed. For instance, Geochronology (https://www.geochronology.net/index.html) was launched in 2019, it received in IF in 2024.
Bottom line, for diamond open-access journal it is not so super easy to achieve a listing, it needs resources. Still, I may add more examples that are somewhat independent (so far examples from academia are counted as independent; of course, no one explicitly writes about Ancient TL but uses the source).

* To calculate luminescence (and electron spin resonance) ages, a few online calculators exist,

**all**

use data published in Acient TL
because it contains important values agreed by the community and is used a reference:
- DRAC caculator [(Durcan et al., 2015, Quaternary Geochronology)](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quageo.2015.03.012); website:
https://www.aber.ac.uk/en/dges/research/quaternary/luminescence-research-laboratory/dose-rate-calculator/?show=references
- µRate [Tudyka et al., 2022, Archeometry](https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12828), website: https://miu-rate.polsl.pl/miu-rate/login
- DRc [Taskalos et al., 2015, Archeometry](https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12162)
- eM-Age program: https://github.com/yomismovk/eM-Age-program (the article itself is published in Ancient TL)
- DIN 44808-1:2024-06 (https://www.dinmedia.de/en/draft-standard/din-44808-1/380077566) referes explicitly to five articles published in Ancient TL (18 references in total). Unfortunately, the norm is behind a paywall, as most of the norms are. Cited in this norm (available in German and currently as a draft in English) are the following articles from Ancient TL: Aitken (1992, ATL 10, 15-16); Duller (2011; ATL 29, 1-3); Duval et al. (2017, ATL 35, 11-39); Grün (1992; ATL, 10, 58); Mauz and Lang (2004, ATL 22, 1-8).
- Equipment manufacturers refer to articles published in Ancient TL: https://www.lexsyg.com/applications/geology/radiofluorescence.html and publish technical notes in this journal: https://www.freiberginstruments.com/fileadmin/data/publications/12_Richter_et_al_2012_BetaQuelle_AncientTL.pdf; https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/temperature-calibration-and-minisys-temperature-upgrade-for-the-r GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genuinely, thank you for creating an account to participate in this discussion! Testimonials from researchers in a field can be very useful. I want to quickly point you toward Wikipedia's WP:COI policies; if you have any COI (such as being a current or former editor for Ancient TL), you would need to mention that in a reply or in an edit summary. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Suriname0 Sorry, you are right; I should disclose that I am not unbiased because I am an editorial board member (not the editor) of the journal (the new website is not online yet, though). Two things are, however, important: When I created the original entry on Wikipedia in 2015 and made modifications in the past, I had no such affiliation. Coincidentally, I was just appointed, and we had the first meeting literally a day before ATL was flagged for removal from Wikipedia (which, admittedly, was a little bit odd). My term on the board is limited to a maximum of two years, but I hope that you see that, besides this conflict of interest, the arguments I have given are based on facts and should speak for themselves. GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this kind of thing is not generally a problem (and quite common for academia-related articles which have lots of gray area). Just needs to be disclosed. Thanks! Suriname0 (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. Yes, I am also currently an editor for Ancient TL. TroutbeckRise (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty and @Suriname0, I may raise two more asepcts, and then I will rest my case and wait for the final decision.

I argue that understanding how knowledge is derived is crucial but has been underrepresented in the discussion so far. Imagine I were to write a new Wikipedia article about the timing of the last glacial ice shield retreat in Europe. Because I have a little bit of an understanding of the subject, I would use luminescence data from loess deposits in Europe. Of course, I would cite only sources with a high reputation in the field, such as Quaternary Science Reviews, Nature Geoscience, Science, Quaternary Geochronology, etc. Assuming that I do not screw up the writing, there would be little doubt about the validity of the content, given that it uses highly acceptable sources. But here is the catch: all those articles and their discovery likely sit on parameters published in a journal, eventually not considered worth being listed in the first place. This is a severe problem because it changes how knowledge is generated and reiterated, and it gives more credit to secondary sources than the basis they are using to infer their discovery. I cannot see how this is in Wikipedia's genuine interest. Still, I acknowledge that this is a tricky matter, given the lengthy discussions linked by @Suriname0.

The other point I may raise is that we live in a time where the dissemination of knowledge is a very successful business model. So, instead of giving society free access to knowledge, researchers (paid by taxpayer money) summarise their findings. Then, the taxpayer pays again in one way or another for every article published. And yet, still, large parts of our societies will never have access to that knowledge for pure business reasons. My understanding of Wikipedia is that it tries to provide free access to knowledge to everyone, and this is, on a very different level, of course, the same idea as a community journal where volunteers do everything, apply the same ethical standards as other, listed, journals but distribute free under CC BY licence conditions do not charge the author. To me, this is the original idea of Wikipedia, and I find it daunting to realise that Wikipedia itself is a little bit reluctant to support the engagement of others in that regard.

I did not even blink when a large part of the content from the article was removed in 2022 because this was likely indeed overly promotional. But what is on the vote here is the deletion of mainly technical information. Is it really that essential to have it removed?

Well, I guess that's all I have. Thanks for reading and for considering my arguments!

GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Independent sources are sufficient to demonstrate that this journal has a meaningful presence in the professional world of a legitimate scientific field. Given that, I am satisfied that this article provides a home for useful information about a topic which readers would have reason to want to know. In my own experience, these sorts of articles can be quite useful for vetting sources of information, both in my professional life and while editing Wikipedia (and even while just reading the news). So I think this article is a net positive for the encyclopedia and common sense would suggest that it should be kept. Given the limitations of the WP:GNG guideline and the lack of consensus around the WP:NJOURNALS essay, I think common sense is the best thing we have to go on. Hence, keep. Botterweg (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for addiing some sources to this article. Unfortunately, in-passing mentions in obituaries of the founding editor do not contribute to notability. And an editorial published in the journal itself is not independent and does not contribute to notability either. So basically your motivation for your "keep" !vote is WP:ILIKEIT. --Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: My argument for keeping the article is simply what is stated above. It does not involve any obituaries, editorials, or personal feelings about the topic. Botterweg (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I'm making a WP:COMMON SENSE argument since I don't think any existing essay or guideline provides an optimal standard for notability in this topic area. However, if we are to go on WP:NJOURNALS (which is a definite improvement over pure WP:GNG) then this would certainly count as notable. For specifics, see @Tserton's !vote down below. Botterweg (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some of the (canvassed?) Keep views here carry little if any P&G weight. But even discarding those, we don't yet have consensus--or even quorum--to delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since we seem to start again, a few more arguments: Ancient TL (or more the editor) has a seat in the committee of the elected international trapped-charge dating association (results from 2023: [16].)This meets WP:NJOURNALS criteria 1 because the journal is considered influential enough in its subject area to grant such a position (no other editor from higher ranked journals are listed automatically). The journal is further listed in the European Parlament Library [17]. The journal certainly fulfils WP:NJOURNALS criteria 3 ("The journal is historically important in its subject area."), which is explained in detail in a dedicated article (yes, in Ancient TL, but I cannot explain it much better than as it is written) [18]. The more as even today (see my links in comments above) articles from the 90s are still cited in recent articles. GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass GNG or NJOURNALS. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather see a merge, but there's no obvious target (Center for Archaeometry the original publisher, being ideal IMO), therefore delete. No independent sources. This fails WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not from this field, so I don't have expertise on this journal. But it seems to meet WP:NJOURNALS criteria 1 ("considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area") and 2 ("The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources"). These are actually pretty clear-cut: many of the articles are cited by journals that are clearly reliable (I see plenty of Nature and Science, as well as Quaternary Science Reviews [19] [20]. The question of independent, third-party sources is more iffy. But there are university webpages that mention basic details about the journal: [21], [22]. It's sometimes also described as a subject in its own right in scientific papers: [23] - "Optimization of ambient lighting in luminescence dating laboratories has been subject to several studies since the early days of thermoluminescence dating. Almost all of these are published in Ancient TL.") It's not exactly in-depth coverage by the New York Times, but it's worth pointing out that the vast majority of clearly notable journals for which Wikipedia has dedicated articles would fail this criterion if we demanded that sort of coverage. In short: WP:NJOURNALS seems to be clearly fulfilled. The thin existence of third-party sources makes it an edge case, and I would much prefer to err on the side of keep in cases like that. --Tserton (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the result ends up being keep, I would volunteer to clean up the article a bit and add the third-party sources. Tserton (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which third-party sources? Just some citations won't do. Unless I'm terribly mistaken (which may well be given the wall of text above), there's not a single source about the journal. That articles that appeared in a journal are cited by reliable sources is irrelevant (WP:NOTINHERITED). --Randykitty (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Randykitty, "Just some citations won't do". You can certainly bring that argument, but then we narrow it down to something that exists only in a few disciplines where a particular journal (not articles) gains much public attention. In academia, citations count. Ancient TL serves a niche, and notability relates to the field (cf. WP:NJOURNALS). Your striking argument is that the journal is not listed in some sources detailed in WP:NJOURNALS. Foremost, Scopus, FENS, JSTOR and Journal Citation Reports. This was not on debate anyway, but since WP:NJOURNALS only needs one of the criteria fulfilled, I may suggest changing WP:NJOURNALS (or at least reaching a consensus there) before continuing here. From where I stand, this would be a fair and logical procedure and it would also serve the "in dubio pro reo" idea. GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: Respectfully, I think you're wrong. The NJOURNAL notability criteria, as I interpret them, are that a subject only needs to be widely cited by reliable sources, which this journal clearly is. There doesn't have to be an article specifically about the journal, just third-party sources that provide information about it to form citable content for the page. As GeoGammaMorphologe notes, there are very, very, very few academic journals that are covered as a standalone subject by third party sources. Tserton (talk)

Yes, and there are very, very, very few academic journals without indexing that get an article here. Note that per NJournals coverage in selective indexing services constitute independent reliable sources, which this journal doesn't have. As we only have sources depending on the journal itself, we don't have anything to base an article on. The NJournals criterium on citations is rather subjective. What you find substantial, I deem not sufficient. NJournals needs overhaul, but have a look at its talk page: it's obviously an uphill battle to change anything or even maintain the status quo. --Randykitty (talk) 08:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken more time to read into the WP:NJOURNALS discussion and admit that while looking at my field, thepressure is just too high to spend time writing articles about essential journals in the field. Disciplines are different, though. I think the Wikipedia community should preserve and curate this memory based on traceable details, and this should not be dominated by selected indices where a business interest certainly is one driving factor. At least, I would hope so. You seem to agree that WP:NJOURNALS lacks consensus and needs a change. Therefore, it seems fair to postpone the deletion discussion until the guidelines are more precise. GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 10:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with @Tserton that this would count as notable under WP:NJOURNALS. While indexing can be part of a complete breakfast when judging notability and it's certainly unusual for a notable journal to not assign dois, neither is required by NJOURNALS. According to Criterion #2 of that essay, a journal is notable if it is frequently cited by other reliable sources. That's verifiably true of this journal given that Google Scholar shows its articles routinely getting hundreds and sometimes even thousands of citations in journals including Science and Nature. So under NJOURNALS, this would count as notable. Botterweg (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's what it means. Science or Nature are citing papers which happen to be published in this journal, that's not saying anything much about this journal per say. I bet if one looked hard enough there would be papers cited in Nature articles for journals that have been deleted as not notable here. JMWt (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To say that a journal is frequently cited means that papers in the journal are cited frequently. You're right that an isolated citation in Science or Nature wouldn't carry weight on its own, but in this case these aren't isolated examples. Google Scholar shows the journal being cited frequently in such sources, which is what it takes to satisfy C2. Botterweg (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the 'remarks' for WP:JOURNALCRIT C2 says nothing about being cited in Nature or similar. That's just an assertion by you. In fact it talks about the use of citation indexes, which as we have already heard do not actually index this journal. Relying on WP:NJOURNALS then making up what that essay actually says is a pretty poor way to present an AfD argument in my opinion. JMWt (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at present. It has no doi for articles and isn't indexed. If that changes in the near future, then as far as I'm concerned that's an argument for !keep that has some weight. Until that time, there's nothing much here except WP:ILIKEIT.JMWt (talk) 07:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No DOI is indeed very annoying but not a WP:NJOURNALS criteria and should not be considered. Being indexed is one vivacious and possible criterion but not a compulsory one. Besides, this change is underway with the switch to the new publisher (see above) and the listing in CrossRef. My last information is that this will be completed by 2024. What about agreeing on a reasonable deadline for this change here, and if it does not happen as I claim it, we go ahead and delete the entry as proposed? This will serve both sides of the aisle. GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok well you’ve been heard extensively. But as someone who has a clear Conflict of Interest (COI), there is no consensus to take any more notice than we already have of your opinion. JMWt (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment @JMWt, no problem, I got it and will then stay in the back. GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We now have quorum, but I still see no consensus here. Please note that WP:NJOURNALS is an essay, not a guideline. There's no community consensus that meeting NJOURNALS is sufficient to establish notability, although the general view is that failing NJOURNALS is enough to justify deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: despite the wall of text above full of wikilawyering, this is an absolute fail of NJournals not to mention GNG. There are also serious problems with WP:V, given that there are absolutely no independent sources. --Randykitty (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to come at this from another angle. To those advocating deletion: have a look at the citations of some of the articles from this paper. Not articles I cherry-picked - have a look at all of them: [24] There is a large number of papers that receive hundreds, and in some cases thousands, of high-quality citations. Most of these seem to be (I'm guessing archeological dating) method papers. I'm not from this field so I can't judge specifically, but in my field papers cited thousands of times by high-quality journals including Science and Nature would be among the field's seminal works. Step away from the arguments about how the notability criteria should be interpreted and ask yourselves: do you really believe Wikipedia should not have an article on a journal that has published - and by the looks of it, is still publishing - techniques influential enough to be routinely used in some of archeology's biggest discoveries? I'm genuinely surprised how clear-cut some people think the case for delete is.

And to reiterate, because there's been some (I have to say disingenuous) overlooking of it: there are third-party sources on this journal. They're not exactly deep-dive exposes, but there's enough information out there to form an article, even if it's unlikely to be more than a stub. Some examples:

[25]: "Optimization of ambient lighting in luminescence dating laboratories has been subject to several studies since the early days of thermoluminescence dating. Almost all of these are published in Ancient TL."
[26] "Also, smaller technical contributions to the field are reported in Ancient TL, started by David Zimmerman in 1977. Initially this was an informal newsletter, running a couple of issues a year, but Ancient TL became a recognized publication with an ISSN in 1983, and volume 1 was published that year."
[27] "Ancient TL is published 3 or 4 times a year at the University of Durham. This elegant journal includes articles on thermal luminescence and electron spin residents, as well as editorials and a column on computer methods....In addition, ancient TL produced a date list, providing detailed information and technical specifications on recent TL age estimates."
[28] "Since the autumn of 1977 a quarterly newsletter, Ancient TL, has been helping to exchange practical information on TL dating. It has been published by the Center for Archaeometry, Washington University, St. Louis, Mo."

And to those using the lack of indexing as an argument for deletion: why is indexing the be all and end all of notability? Most scientists find their literature through Google Scholar or by following citations from other papers, not indexing services. Tserton (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indexing services only include a journal after a commission of experts has investigated the journal in depth. Several people (like I myself) therefore regard indexing as an independent reliable source as required by GNG and argue (NJournals) that indexing shows that a journal is notable. If there is no indexing, a journal fails NJournals and therefore has to meet GNG by having sources that discuss the journal in-depth. This journal has neither, no indexing and no sources about the journal. --Randykitty (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland–Zambia relations

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD outcome was redirect. A year later someone reverts this redirect with no improvement to article. These relations still fail GNG. LibStar (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Ireland. LibStar (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect and salt. Per previous AfD, as nothing has changed. Yilloslime (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

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

This list has been a magnet for original research and edit warring for years. The basic problem is that we don't have good sources that treat the subject as a cohesive set, because while the "X is the oldest city in Y" is an attention-grabbing headline, it's not really a topic of serious scholarly interest. Instead, the list has been cobbled together from hundreds of sources that make claims about the age of individual cities. This is problematic because these sources don't have a consistent definition of—and rarely even discuss—what counts as a "city" or what it means to be "continuously inhabited". Non-academic sources also routinely repeat dubious dates without checking where they come from or confuse e.g. a prehistoric camp site being found within or adjacent to a village with that village being "10,000 years old", especially where there's a nationalistic angle (i.e. our oldest city is oldest than our neighbours).

I suggest deletion because I don't think this list is salvageable by changing the scope or sourcing requirements and in general we have moved on from these SYNTHy collections that were common in the early days. – Joe (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Archaeology. – Joe (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete: nominator makes a good case, nothing much to add. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 12:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I accept the nominator's points about the drawbacks of this list, but I do think a list of oldest cities is a reasonable thing for WP to provide. While people certainly do add OR to this article (constantly), that OR is removed when the additions cannot be sourced. Good academic sources exist on the history of all major settlements in the world today. The fact that bad sources also exist is no grounds for refusing to cover a topic. As for definitions of terms, "city" can't really be a problem, or we wouldn't have any lists of cities, while edge cases for "continuously inhabited" can be dealt with using the "notes" section of the list.

It certainly is a lot of work to maintain this list in the face of frequent additions of inappropriate content, but that isn't a justification for deletion. Furius (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good academic sources exist on the history of all major settlements in the world today – certainly, but these sources are not helpful, because of the consistency problems mentioned above. The definition of a city might not be an issue in lists of modern cities but in the past it is a lot hardy to define and the frequent subject of debate.[29] What we need are reliable sources that list and discuss "oldest cities" specifically per WP:LISTN. – Joe (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the basis that an encyclopedia should contain this kind of information. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Furius, and I can't help but feel that many of the edit warring and original research problems would disappear if the content actually matched the title. At the moment the content is for List of oldest continuously inhabited cities by region. Why does this list contain 55 cities for North America? Clearly should be organised chronologically first. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously this is a worthwhile topic for an encyclopedia. I agree with Airship about the layout of the page being problematic. CarlStrokes (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP for, oddly enough, the very reason you think it should be deleted. Because you need to cobble together dozens and dozens of sources for any comparison, _any_ comparison has strong encyclopedic value, even if imperfect. Even if _deeply_ imperfect. Tigerhawkvok (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have five keep !votes but still not a single source that would count towards WP:LISTN. – Joe (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without a consistent approach to (1) what is a city and (2) how continuously inhabited is defined I don't see how this is a viable list. What we are left with is a classic example of WP:SYNTH. I also wonder to what extent the list may be inherently problematic. It omits destroyed settlements and excludes groups which tend to not have permanent settlements, giving a rather colonised view of the world. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In 2007 or 2008, I would’ve made a strong effort to save this, but this is a mess of synthesis. Bearian (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination, which I find convincing enough.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this subject passes WP:NLIST since its members are discussed as a group in secondary, reliable sources -- namely National Geographic, ArchDaily, Conde Nast Traveler &c. Individual entries should be appropriately sourced, and I agree with the recommendations above for reorganizing chronologically rather than by continent, but WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is split between keep and delete. Relisting for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The encyclopedic value is obvious. Frankly, I don't see how this would be any more problematic than the List of tallest people. Sure, different lists may have different pieces of information, and that may change in the future, but that is just the nature of geographically and historically dispersed information. BD2412 T 19:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many attempts have been made to make sense out of this article for the last few years but all of them have been unsuccessful. The criteria for this list is itself problematic. Nxcrypto Message 03:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Fresh

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

I can't find any significant coverage from independent and reliable sources, not even in spanish

the topic of the article seems not to comply with WP:SINGER, not WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to comply with WP:GNG Pitille02 (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Panama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I haven't done a full search yet but this staff written bio on AllMusic here is a reliable source that confirms he has a Gold record and multiple album releases on Sony Music. That passes criteria 3 and 5 of WP:NMUSIC, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If it passes criteria 3 and 5, it should be kept. LexigtonMisiENG (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Through Art – to Peace and Understanding

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

The significance of the award has not been demonstrated separately from Slavyansky Bazar. There are no independent authoritative references.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Awards, and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chandrashekar Bandiyappa

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

Procedural nomination. Contested Jimfbleak's WP:G11 deletion and reverted to a non-promotional revision. Potentially meets WP:DIRECTOR through his filmography. I would !vote weak keep, but I have no real opinion as I have not investigated this topic in any great detail. Anarchyte (talk) 08:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Anarchyte (talk) 08:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A clear WP:DIRECTOR pass with 3 notable films that received critical attention. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Passes WP:NFILMMAKER where all his films got multiple reviews in reliable sources. This page still needs lot of improvement made with better sources and more coverage on the career. RangersRus (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Electronic Materials

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and China. Mccapra (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Los Juglares del Dexas

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

Only receives tangential coverage and reads like WP:PROMO, does not meet the criteria of either WP:NSINGER or GNG. WP:SIGCOV requires high quality references with proper signatures. Pitille02 (talk) 06:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Panama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree, the page should be deleted due to it not meeting criteria. LexigtonMisiENG (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving North Korea

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

I absolutely think that a page about wars involving Korea should exist. However, I don't believe a separate page is necessary. All wars involving pre-1945 Korea as well as North and South Korea are already included on List of wars involving Korea. I believe that is sufficient. This also has precedent e.g. East and West Germany don't have separate pages for their wars, and neither do North and South Vietnam or North and South Yemen.

I also find it a bit odd to include wars involving historical states on the territory of current-day North Korea here, as North Korea isn't a direct successor those states - both North and South Korea succeed the Korean Empire and Korea as a territory under Japanese occupation. When excluding those pre-modern wars, the list shrinks down quite a lot, making this page an unnecessary fork. Cortador (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to this: depending on the outcome of this AfD, I'll nominate List of wars involving South Korea as well. However, this the arguments for and against that will pretty much be the same as the ones here, I didn't want to split the debate, and just nominated this page for now. Cortador (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Lists, and North Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea is still a country, however. I propose that we kept this article strictly North Korea (and the South Korea one, strictly South Korea). For the Korea one, we can skip the duplicates and instead link to these separate articles. If Korea is ever reunified, I suppose we could consider a merge, but that's for another day :) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but remove general korea stuff pre-1948 and add a This article is about post-1948 wars fought by North Korea. For wars fought by pre-1948 Korea, see List of wars involving Korea at the top). East/west Germany were not involved in many (any?) conflicts outside of Germany as themselves so a list would be silly but North/South Korea division has persisted to this day and NK has been involved in several significant conflicts as the list shows (also I believe Russia-Ukraine - that should probably be added but I'll leave it to someone more experienced with military articles as I don't think they've technically confirmed it). Molecular Pilot 06:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feli Ferraro

AfDs for this article:

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

Was previously soft-deleted after an AfD in May, and it appears all the same issues discussed there still apply. Both the nominator and sole voter in that AfD called for deletion, and I'd be surprised if anyone would've countered it had there been more participation. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hello! I started this page a while back and have continued working on this page. I did not chime in when the page was previously put up for deletion as I wholeheartedly agreed with the reasoning for deletion: the only mention of the subject not from a publishing body she was signed to/managed by was in passing in one article (that has since been removed as it was from a pseudo-blog owned by the label who released the song it discussed), and while she has continued to craft hits of all sizes (she is a songwriter), there were no awards at the time to further prove notability. However, much has changed since the deletion, as Q3 2023-2024 has been a banner season for her career:

(1) A Billboard magazine article ([30]) discussing an elite writing camp her publishing company put together (of 11 members) that has since appeared on virtually every K-pop album that has broken through in the United States market (nicknamed "the Hit Factory"). Not only does she appear in the cover photo and additional photos, but the article mentions her past and present placements as well as a few mentions of personal life.

(2) A songwriting award (win) from BMI - arguably the largest songwriting/publishing governance organization, as the song she co-wrote was ranked in the top 20 of pop songs in the past year based on radio airplay, club play, live performances, and TV commercial placements.

(3) A songwriting award (nomination) for "Wild Ones" - a large country-pop single (2x Platinum) this year that is already being discussed in several Grammy award songwriting and performance categories (to be announced next month in November).

(4) She has since co-written/produced virtually an entire major label album (female rapper Coi Leray's COI), receiving her first Billboard Top 10 single as a writer, as well as several songs with David Guetta that became hits in the European / Australian markets. Trainsskyscrapers (talk 15:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Connecticut. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Nomination of Feli Ferraro for deletion. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kafu Banton

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

the topic of the article seems not to comply with WP:SINGER, not WP:BIO, WP:RS to comply with WP:GNG Pitille02 (talk) 09:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Panama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tatsuki Noda

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

Unfortunately fails of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played 17 minutes in Japan's third league. The only source in ja:wiki to possibly rise above the usual primary and routine sources, [31], is also a transfer announcement containing three long quotes. Geschichte (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only English things I can find are player databases with minimal info on them and very minimal criteria for inclusion. Searches for Japanese: 野田樹code: jpn promoted to code: ja return basically the same thing (but also some social media profiles). Only things of interest are [32] which is just a football club saying that she's returning to her original club after a loan - it's primary so doesn't count her WP:BIO. As mentioned by Geschichte there's also [33] but I don't think it counts as "substantial" it's just a WP:PRIMARY quote and "this player, among others, has been announced for the team" with some limited biographical data. Molecular Pilot 06:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mehazkim

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

Based on the sourcing in this article, the organisation does not meet WP:NCORP. The Hebrew article isn’t any help in terms of additional sources that would show the topic is notable. There may be better sources in Hebrew that I can’t find, but if not I think this should be deleted, Mccapra (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Israel. Mccapra (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a recognized association in Israel (link here & here), It's also known for it's political activities (some English sources: 1, 2, 3). I don't think the article should be deleted, but I'll respect the community decision. אקסינו (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep As it covers an important progressive movement in Israel that has made a significant impact on social and political issues. The group has been involved in campaigns for environmental protection, human rights, and social justice, which have received media attention. There are reliable sources that show the group's importance, including news articles and reports about its activities. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just being officially registered does not make the organisation notable. Where is the in depth coverage of it in reliable independent sources? Mccapra (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Kris Tyson

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

A previous AfD last year decided that this article should be merged into MrBeast Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Tyson (2nd nomination), and was recreated this year by a user with only 54 edits total [34] While the misconduct allegations that have come out since that discussion have signficiantly enhanced the coverage of this individual, I still think that it should be deleted/redirected for a number of reasons. 1. This individual has basically only been covered in the context of coming out as transgender and misconduct allegations against them, which is entirely within the context of their relationship with MrBeast (WP:NOTINHERITED), and given that their relationship with MrBeast has ended it seems unlikely that they will get any followup coverage in the future. Both aspects are already adequately covered in the main MrBeast article. While this isn't technically a BLP1E, it's not exactly far off. 2. This article since its recreation has been a massive target for serious BLP-violating vandalism which continually comes back despite having been semi-protected numerous times over the last few months and seems unlikely to abate in the near future. Wikipedia has a duty of care towards BLP subjects and I do not think this page currently serves a useful purpose. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity I am fine with the article being merged as suggested by others below. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This is a difficult one to judge. It is very close to BLP1E. I don't know if any (official) charges were made against the subject? The reason I ask is that if there are criminal charges then this may drag on and result in further information being added. Obviously, WP:CRYSTAL applies as to what might happen in the future. For now, I think this is as close as you can get to BLP1E and the article should be merged to MrBeast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knitsey (talk • contribs)

As far as I am aware, there are no criminal charges. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry for forgetting to sign, I sometimes forget when desktop editing)

I've had a look around for anything else about the subject and can't find anything other than the recent accusations against her. It should be noted, that not all American sources are available in the UK. Knitsey (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge? Probably? I was expecting this to be a keep but adding "-beast -mrbeast" to the Google searches returns only non-RS stuff. Some of it is people involved with Tyson having their say, which is fair enough, but most of it is cynical drama content and other worthless slop. However, I do have a warning: Merging this will not stop the disruption. It will only move it to the merged article. We may even get an increase in disruption as the content would be in a higher profile article. That said, if it should be merged then we can't let that stop us. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This articles content is basically already entirely covered at MrBeast#LGBT Issues (in the personal views section, where their gender transition is discussed) and MrBeast#Ava Kris Tyson (in the controversies section which covers the misconduct allegations), so I don't see how redirecting this article will realistically increase disruption if the content is already there. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ava uses she/her. 82.3.200.164 (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Any content in the page is merged into the MrBeast page already, and in the scope of BLP, I don't think it's great, although the semi protection has worked, so not sure about the BLP section, but given it's not adding much value given most content is already in the MrBeast page, I think it could be deleted. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 19:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Opinion divided between Merge and Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MrBeast#Ava Kris Tyson. Anything worth merging from the Ava Kris Tyson article is already included in the MrBeast article and the #Ava Kris Tyson section. Some1 (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahram Pourassad

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

BLP lacking any proper sourcing, cut and pasted from draft. I wanted to draftify it but the draft still exists. Does not belong in mainspace. Mccapra (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Iran. Mccapra (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beauxbatons

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

This page has similar coverage and notability as other locations in the Harry Potter series, notably the Durmstrang academy as both locations have the same role in the series as schools in the triwizard tournament in the 4th harry potter book, which does not have its own article.

The references in the current article are currently two top 10 trivia lists from screenrant, an article written by JK Rowling herself about the school and other articles that talk about Beauxbatons along with other locations in the series with similar depth and focus.

Based on this with the WP:GNG guidelines I don't believe Beauxbatons has significant independent coverage to warrant its own article, and it should be merged with Places in Harry Potter with other locations in the series that have similar coverage. Mousymouse (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge makes sense to me, the best sources in the article aren’t actually about Beauxbatons exclusively, but about analysis of larger themes in the text, and I think the value of those citations could be preserved on the Places in Harry Potter page, or a section of another article dealing with analysis of themes around national identity and ethnicity in HP. penultimate_supper 🚀 (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Penultimate supper. Based on WP:GNG, this doesn't have significant coverage to warrant an article. But there is a valid WP:ATD and merge target. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is specifically not relevant with regard to notability, if the article topic is the main topic of the source. What is relevant is if the secondary sources can provide enough material for a full article. Now the source by Flotmann, as well as others like Muggles, Monsters and Magicians, Creating Magical Worlds and "Harry Potter – National Hero and National Heroic Epic" all have commentary which goes significantly beyond a mention in passing, and can provide more material for an article which, as it is now, already goes beyond a stub. "A Postmodernistic Look at the Harry Potter Series" additionally has a much shorter, but non-trivial observation which I did not see in the other sources. The same is most likely true for Durmstrang. So both topics in my view fullfill WP:GNG. All that said, much coverage is done in direct comparison of Durmstrang and Beauxbaton. So while I think both could easily have their own article, I am also fine with them being covered in extended sections, or maybe even a combined section, at Places in Harry Potter. Daranios (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And like Penultimate supper stated, the analysis deals with themes around national identity and ethnicity in Harry Potter. So if there was and article about that, that might be a good place to cover both, and that might be a more encyclopedic approach than the list of locations, but I don't know of such an article so far. Daranios (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources discovered by Daranios. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Arguments are divided between Keep and Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Urdu 1

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

Tagged for notability in hopes of improvement but tag removed. A WP:BEFORE does not find significant coverage discussing the list as a whole so fails WP:NLIST. Would recommend merging the content to Urdu 1 but not finding significant coverage for the channel either. Looking at some of the programs listed, I believe a lot will fail notability as well. Searching for ("amanat" + "Urdu 1") finds nothing on Gnews, and only sources such as YouTube and social media in regular Google. CNMall41 (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.". Might need cleanup. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 05:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that you are again citing MOS and not a GUIDELINE. We could create many lists on many topics if we simply use MOS. Can you point out the sources that discuss the list as a group which is a requirement of WP:NLIST?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Again"? I am going to try in capital letters, myself, maybe then :D. "AGAIN"? WP:NLIST IS A GUIDELINE. IT IS A GUIDELINE. A. GUIDELINE. A. NOTABILITY. GUIDELINE. And please JUST. READ. WHAT. I. WROTE. (all the words). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you linked here, which is a Manual of Style guideline. It is NOT a notability guideline. You cite this and WP:SPLITLIST in other AfDs as if they somehow superseded notability guidelines. You missed the part in NLIST (or selectively decided to ignore) where it says "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." I will ask as I have in other AfDs...can you show the significant coverage where the list is discussed in a grouping? As far as your tone, I would ask that you act a little more WP:CIVIL as its not acceptable conduct. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

d-just re-read my !vote "again" and my comment below if you're interested. "i" did not "link" anything that the guideline does not include: the link is included in the original text of the guideline, which is what I quoted: the guideline, which is a guideline (and not not-a-guideline) itself quotes mos to define what the criterion for this particular case is; check the original. other cases exist, other possibilities, other !votes, other parts of other texts, other afds but my present !vote is based on that particular part and i did not quote splitlist here, did I? "still" is the key-word in the sentence that just follows the one from the guideline that i quote. implying that someone has "selectively decided to ignore" something is not exactly a great example of assuming good faith. mentioning that someone does something "again" at afd is also not completely necessary, especially as similar cases imply similar arguments. referring to arguments or outcomes in/of other afds can be helpful to help discussion progress if similar cases offered interesting elements, not to more or less explicitly cast a cloud on contributors with general but vague ad hominem remarks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Urdu 1: I think there is not need for a separate programming page when the contents can be easily merged back into channel page. Wikibear47 (talk) 08:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the suggestion to merge seems to make sense, if other users think size and navigation are not an issue, the page about the network being indeed short. But I think the organisation in similar categories (List(s) of programs broadcast by XXX) is very helpful and clear for the reader. For example List of programs broadcast by Hum TV was AfDed and redirected/merged back...and now it does not appear anymore under the category, so that the reader has been deprived of a simple and powerful tool that helps navigate clearly between networks, in my humble opinion. So unless we can leave the category on the page, a merge seems detrimental to navigation (Hence my !vote). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't keep lists without proper sources. Nate • (chatter) 18:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Urdu 1: Fails WP:NLIST and this is an unneeded CFORK. Much of the content in fact violates NOTTVGUIDE — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the redirect target? I know the sources on the page are poor but only did a brief WP:BEFORE.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, I agree the sourcing on the target Urdu 1 is poor, but whether it meets WP:N is a separate issue. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FI, coverage on the subject of the list as set includes various paragraphs on the very programming of the network in: Sulehria, F. (2018). Media Imperialism in India and Pakistan. Taylor & Francis.; Thussu, Daya Kishan. International Communication: Continuity and Change, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018, p. 207 (on the prominence of Turkish series in the programming of U1). Adding them to the page.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Republican People's Party

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

There is no such thing as the “New Republican People’s Party”. The phrase was used a couple of times by the former leader, but the sources don’t support the claim that it was consistently applied or had any specific meaning. Yes the former leader changed some of the party’s political direction, and perhaps a few sentences from this article could be merged into Republican People's Party, but essentially this just isn’t a thing. The article is based on WP:SYNTH. Mccapra (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Turkey. Mccapra (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this refers to the (Turkish: Yeni Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi), not any other nation. — Maile (talk)
Speedy keep: The naming can be discussed but it is obvious that there is a notable, coherent topic here with reliable sources. Side note: speedily kept on the Turkish Wikipedia [35] TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unnaiye Kadhalipen

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). Most of the sources are relating to Anjali Nair's wedding and not the film itself. The rest are just passing mentions. Other than the first Kungumam source (which doesn't give much), every other source is a passing mention. The title is just a general way of stating I love you [36] [37]. The film had one unreliable Filmibeat source [38], which was about the marriage incident, which is listed as unreliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Generally_used_sources.

Add two reviews (preferably reliable if possible) or reliable sources. DareshMohan (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tamil films of 2010: as a standard alternative to deletion for released films with notable cast and coverage. Not opposed to keep if other users think coverage about production is sufficient. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kumaar

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. CNMall41 (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. He is the lyricist of many songs and found some articles (reliable like Gaana, some aren't) [39] [40] [41]. Add citation needed to the award in question. DareshMohan (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Ionex

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

None of the purported meanings are mentioned in any of the pages linked here. BD2412 T 01:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 01:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kymco: Cannot find evidence of it being used to refer to ion exchange (in general) and the map formats, however, it is a legit subsidiary of Kymco (as listed in the dab) so we should redirect it there. MolecularPilot 02:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @MolecularPilot: If this is the case, then it would be nice to see a source supporting this proposition included in the Kymco article (which currently makes no mention of "Ionex" whatsoever). BD2412 T 02:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  [42] :) Molecular Pilot 02:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ionex is very common for ion exchange process and resins.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ionex+ion+exchange

Or my memory fails and Uncle Google fails too. Shaddack (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All those results are either the name of a company (or a product of a company) that doesn't meet WP:GNG. It doesn't seem to be a general term for the exchange of ions - which is what the linked article is about and makes no mention of these specific products. Molecular Pilot 06:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you came in contact with that stuff, but we called the lil' yellow balls ionexes (catexes and anexes), regardless of who made them. If you ignore the companies-referring search results, you see this use even on first page of results. Shaddack (talk) 08:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the "yellow balls" in this picture: Ion exchange#/media/File:Ion exchange resin beads.jpg???? if so then that's the main picture on the article. if you can find a source for the colloquial naming we might just have enough for a dab (if we make the relation to the yellow balls as opposed to the process in general more clear on the page)!! :) Molecular Pilot 11:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As of the ionospheric map exchange format, see this spec.

https://files.igs.org/pub/data/format/ionex1.pdf

Hard to argue about nonexistence of the thing with International GNSS Service that uses it. Shaddack (talk) 02:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't have an article on the map format (it seems only to be used by that specific company or in a very niche area and may not meet WP:GNG). What would the point of the DAB be? Molecular Pilot 06:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Disambiguation pages disambiguate the contents of Wikipedia, not the contents of the world that have not made it into Wikipedia. BD2412 T 16:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, if it exists it should be at least mentioned. When someone searches for a meaning, it should be at least hinted, if it cannot be linked directly. The primary role of wikipedia is to be a helpful reference to the world, not a closed miniworld of its own. Shaddack (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say we might be able link to the spec from the dab but then I found this on WP:DAB: "Do not include external links, either as entries or in descriptions. Disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia articles, not the World Wide Web". But see my other comment... there still might be enough for a DAB between the scooter brand and the yellow bead things Molecular Pilot 11:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaoli Isshiki

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

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

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

Keep: I haven't looked at those yet, but the English article is now referenced. For me, she is notable enough, having made interesting recordings, with notable ensembles and conductors, and only favourable reviews. She is not a diva-type soprano: that should not be a reason to delete. The article serves many links to music that is not normally in focus, both Baroque as contemporary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the French sources, I need help to not misread the French:
1. [43] This Le Monde article says that she won a prize.
2. [44] This is a more detailed review of her singing (not just "outstanding").
3. [45] recital
4. [46] recording --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt I don't think this in-depth enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. The last source is selling her CD and is not independent or significant coverage. The prod-s.com website also lacks independence. The Le Monde article spends half a sentence on her, and is a smaller not all that notable prize. The main prize went to another performer, Richard Rittelman, who deservedly is the focus of that article. Only the anaclase.com source approaches significant coverage (and honestly it isn't long enough to be considered in-depth as it devotes less than a paragraph of the article to her performance). Laurent Cuniot is the main subject of that article not Isshiki. There's not enough here to pass WP:NSINGER or WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is Wikipedia only for those who win first prize? - This is a performer of several unusual recordings, and performances in Paris, Brussels, Proms, ... - Aldeburgh could be added. - Deborah Sasson was kept, but achieved less in the music world. She knew how to attract the press, however. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 2010 Northern Sumatra earthquake

AfDs for this article:

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

This was essentially a felt event. With a maximum felt intensity of V (""Moderate""), it does not qualify to be on any of our lists of earthquakes, so no place to redirect. From the impact summary of the USGS report "Slight damage and a power outage reported on Simeulue. Felt (V) at Banda Aceh and Meulaboh; (IV) at Medan, Nias and Padang; (III) at Riau and Sibolga; (II) at Jakarta. Felt (III) at Alor Setar, Ayer Itam and Tanjong Bunga; (II) at Bukit Mertajam, Butterworth, Gelugor, Georgetown, Kuala Lumpur, Nibong Tebal and Tanjong Tokong, Malaysia. Felt in much of Peninsular Malaysia. Felt (III) at Phuket, Thailand. Also felt at Bangkok, Hat Yai and Yala. Felt (II) at Rangoon, Burma and at Vientiane, Laos. Also felt (II) in Singapore." Dawnseeker2000 01:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sustained coverage Traumnovelle (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Admittedly, the nomination statement is of little relevance since seismic statistics don't determine notability. However, this topic still fails WP:NEVENT due to a dearth of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE both from checking the foreign language Wikipedia articles and searching elsewhere. Left guide (talk) 07:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DXKS-FM (Cagayan de Oro)

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

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

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

Vishal Singh (politician)

AfDs for this article:

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

This is about an insignificant politician who is not elected to any state level, national level and even local level body. He is merely an officeholder in a government organisation. It fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Adamantine123 (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Adamantine123 (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not elected to any legislative body, fails WP:NPOL TheSlumPanda (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for WP:NPOLITICIAN, as the subject holds a national-wide office, serving as the Chairman of the National Cooperative Consumers Federation of India (NCCF), the apex body for consumer cooperatives in India. The notability for politicians are not limited to holding legislative positions. WP:NPOL clearly states, "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.” National-wide office applies to his role at NCCF. The subject has held a few roles in other cooperative and government bodies in India, some of which are major, including being elected as a Director of NAFED[ref]. The page can be kept. --Vikasudayrajsharma (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject appears to lack notability, having held non-notable roles at organizations of limited prominence. Alternatively, consider a redirect, such as to the National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India. Please see article hist for more information TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India, of which he’s chairman. I’m not sure if anyone will be looking for him under the phrase (politician) in the sense that he’s a party leader, not an elected official, but it’s a good alternative to deletion. Bearian (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet. As far as I understand it, "officeholder" in POL means being elected or appointed to a government position, agency or legislative body, not having a position or "office" in a NGO or other organization.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the organization: as suggested seems ok. I don't think this is a politician, more of a civil servant. Oaktree b (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. This also could be closed as a CSD G5 as the creator was part of a long line of socks interested in having this article on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Alma (numismatist)

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted as WP:Articles for deletion/Blake Alma (TV Host) and in the first nomination, and salted as Blake Alma. WP:REFBOMBED with unreliable sources, quotes, passing mentions, etc. with very little actual significant coverage cited.

(Not tagging for speedy deletion because it's been several years so things could plausibly have changed. But the refs here fail to convince me they have) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And let's titleblacklist .*blake.*alma.* once this is closed as delete so we can finally stop this campaign or whatever. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Radio, Television, Christianity, Florida, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article as provided demonstrates significant developments in Blake Alma's notability since the 2018 deletion. The sources cited, particularly WCPO (a major Cincinnati ABC affiliate), K-Love (a nationally syndicated radio network), and multiple Cincinnati Enquirer archive pieces, offer substantial, independent coverage that extends well beyond passing mentions or quotes.

These are not unreliable sources or self-promotion; they are established, reputable media outlets providing significant coverage of Alma's work and impact. The WCPO and Cincinnati Enquirer pieces offer in-depth reporting on Alma's activities and influence in the outdoor and conservation spheres.

This is not a case of WP:REFBOMBING. Each source included provides meaningful, substantial coverage. A thorough review of these sources, paying close attention to the depth of coverage and the independence of the reporting, is warranted.

The current body of coverage, coming from established and independent media outlets, meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. The subject has clearly gained significant attention since the previous AfD, justifying a reevaluation of his notability status. If there are specific concerns about any of the sources or their content, they should be addressed individually rather than dismissing the article outright. Delawaretallman (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed breakdown...I totally agree! I put a lot of effort into this article and it's great to see someone else recognizing how Alma's profile has grown since the other deletion which I wasn't aware of until a live admin told me. Those sources really do show he's become noteworthy for this page. Thanks @Delawaretallman Coincollector4500 (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. Upon further review, some of the data in media coverage seems slightly like a form WP:REFBOMBING however, if cleaned up you should be just fine. Just use the secondary and primary sources that are in-depth. @Coincollector4500 Good luck! Delawaretallman (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, you quoted him on a religious statement from seemingly a personal social media account as the last source. I'd suggest you'd find that on a public account or another source. Looks like the K-Love article also quoted from that video so I suggest using that as the source. Delawaretallman (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if kept, this needs to be moved to Blake Alma. St Anselm (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that title is salted. That's how I found this article. I periodically run a report that looks for articles created at extra-long titles to evade salting. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the title was salted 11 years ago however. Delawaretallman (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that decision was reinforced several times since. You (plural) clearly knew you were circumventing a decision Wikipedia has made several times to not have an article on this person, and did it anyway. The lack of respect that shows for Wikipedia's processes is shocking. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does look like the notability has changed. So yes, it should have been created in draft space and then an administrator could have moved it. But the process has nothing to do with whether it should be kept now. St Anselm (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. However, I'm not aware of any disrespect I've shown towards Wikipedia's processes or decisions. If I've inadvertently done so, I sincerely apologize. Could you please provide more specific information about the decision you're referring to? I'm always eager to learn and improve my contributions to Wikipedia. If there's been a misunderstanding, I'd be happy to discuss it further and ensure we're aligned with community consensus moving forward. Delawaretallman (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That "you" was really directed more to Coincollector4500, and I (perhaps erroneously) guilted you by association. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I did provide some guidance to Coincollector4500, but I have no association with the article's creator. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention, as it's important to maintain transparency in Wikipedia collaborations. If there are concerns about the article's creation or maintenance, I'd be happy to discuss them further to ensure we're adhering to Wikipedia's policies and community decisions. Delawaretallman (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the subject now passes GNG. St Anselm (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources that get close to WP:GNG-qualifying are WCPO, KLove, and Spectrum News. The WCPO piece predates all the other AfD discussions and appears almost entirely based on an WP:INTERVIEW that doesn't appear to involve substantial journalistic work beyond the comments from Alma, making it a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. The new-ish KLove piece is highly promotional and one-sided, with language like Blake Alma's story is one of remarkable success and profound personal transformation.... his journey from a successful entrepreneur to a college student underscores the significance of aligning one's professional achievements with personal convictions. His narrative, enriched with personal reflections and aspirations, serves as an inspiration, highlighting the courage it takes to pursue a path that truly resonates with one's values and beliefs, even when it diverges from a successful, established route. This is transparently not an independent source, and again appears based solely on Alma's word, not original reporting. The same goes for the Spectrum News piece, it's based solely on Alma's words. The handful of Cincinnati Enquirer stories are likewise interview-based human interest pieces that function as primary sources since they're entirely based on Alma's words or videos. (Worth noting: the four Enquirer stories are not actually linked on the site of the publication or on ProQuest, but are copyright violations posted on a personal webhost service that coincidentally only includes these four articles and nothing else: https://cincinnatiarchives.tiiny.site/. I am deleting them from the article per WP:COPYLINK.). The rest of the links are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or press releases that don't support notability. Based on the non-independence of the sources used, I don't believe we have a WP:GNG pass here. The salting of the original article title was wise, and I agree with Pppery that additional permutations of this article title should be salted to avoid AfC evasion. Finally, this article was created a single-purpose account whose only other work was a draft for Alma's company CoinHub Media, so I strongly suspect we have a case of WP:UPE here as well. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You raise some valid points about the WCPO source - I agree it appears to be interview-based, and the unclear sourcing of the video content does make it less reliable as a provable independent source. However, I respectfully disagree about the K-love article. While it does contain some promotional-sounding language, this appears to be more a reflection of K-love established editorial style as a religous broadcasting network rather than a lack of independence. Klove is a national broadcasting network (operating over 400 stations) and should be a recognized secondary source. The religious perspective in their reporting shouldn't disqualify it as a reliable source. Regarding the Cincinnati Enquirer articles, that was a good catch and yes, you did a fine job of removing that. It appears a random IP address tried to fix the issue, presumably the article's creator. The Spectrum News piece, while containing interview footage, is reporting and verification of Alma's business operations, and is primary source material. I overall personally disagree with your assessment to delete but I do appreciate your viewpoint, and you've done excellent work catching the Cincinnati Enquirer citation issues and raising valid questions about the WCPO source. Delawaretallman (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but the Spectrum News piece verifies things by quoting... Alma himself. There's no evidence of other sources for Alma's claims. And the KLove piece appears to be based on nothing more than... Alma's claims about himself. And there's no evidence that KLove is operating as a real news organization per WP:NEWSORG. It has no editorial staff listing on its site, and it has no public editorial policy or statements about fact-checking or corrections. Its news feed (https://www.klove.com/news) is mostly reprints of wire stories mixed in with WP:USERGENERATED content. And its mission is explicitly about creating positive and inspiring content (see its "Positive People" feed), which means its content will always be editorially positive and thus introduces questions about independence and reliability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to hear more assessment of the sources here and opinions on what should happen with this article and whether or no notability can be established.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: after looking at them, only 3 of the sources are valid and not just passing mentions as Dclemens1971 stated. For WCPO per WP:RS "Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting" and that's basically all it is. It's just about "wow this kid discovered the outdoors (and A LOT of specifics about the journey) and runs a small (now defunct) podcast", nothing related to what he does today and doesn't show anything relating to NOTABILITY. The KLove and Spectrum articles are also human interest, and all they do is repeat what he said with little else. Parroting what he said, without analysis or contextualization, is a primary source. WP:BIO: "primary sources... do not [prove] notability". I also echo concerns raised by Dclemens1971 over the reliability of KLove as a legit WP:NEWSORG, I cannot find any evidence of editors, editorial policies or oversight.Molecular Pilot 01:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Even in otherwise-reliable publications, you aren't going to meet the GNG with interviews alone (and I also question whether K-Love—which while a national radio network is more known for its Christian music programming than anything resembling journalism—even constitutes generally-RS for our purposes to start with). As to the UPE concerns mentioned earlier: there has been socking in relation to this topic in the past involving at least most of the previous creation attempts, for what that's worth. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & salt It's an interesting one. On the face of it, the sources look plenty. Take out the non-reliable sources (NY Post, Goodreads, social media) and the ones that are about numismatics rather than Alma, as well as the CoinHub ones of course, and you're still left with several. If we were merely counting the number of sources, GNG would be easily satisfied. Alas, they are all of the 'young person does business' type, the sort of stuff you might see as the 'kicker' ie. the final light piece in a local news bulletin. These often come about because either the subject, or someone close to them, is good at playing the media game and/or has the right contacts. And judging by the persistence with which this is being pushed into Wikipedia, I get the feeling we're very much part of that publicity campaign. For that reason, I'm also asking for salt, because otherwise I expect we shall meet here again before long. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Makgala, Christian John (2006). "Bid to Settle Jewish Refugees from Nazi-Germany in Botswana, 1938-1939". Botswana Notes and Records. 38: 20–32. ISSN 0525-5090.

[1]