User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 18:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Relists	Score
Jason Gunawan	54 years ago	0	0	0	1437949.41
Buang Ruk Kamathep	19 days ago	1	4697	0	1755.7
NGC 7075	17 days ago	2	5146	0	1489.53
Ji (surname 蓟)	17 days ago	4	5132	0	1398.92
Socialist Alternative (Malaysia) (2nd nomination)	14 days ago	1	3908	0	1370.54
Bowie Jane	16 days ago	3	11938	0	1366.22
Thailand women's national under-18 softball team	13 days ago	1	3931	0	1335.71
Kimia Alizadeh vs Nahid Kiani	16 days ago	3	7543	0	1326.59
Islamic Commercial Law	13 days ago	1	7948	0	1311.27
Kashmir Black Day	13 days ago	1	5629	0	1295.85
List of telecommunications companies in the Middle East and Africa	14 days ago	2	4543	0	1265.26
Eureka Rebellion in popular culture	14 days ago	2	7425	0	1248.98
List of telecommunications companies in the Americas	14 days ago	2	6482	0	1245.11
Livio Mayr	13 days ago	2	4200	0	1180.74
Hiram Bravo Moreno	11 days ago	1	3557	0	1178.36
List of best-selling automobiles in China	14 days ago	4	4646	0	1169.01
Embassy of the United Kingdom, Budapest	14 days ago	4	5508	0	1166.15
Wayne T. Smith	12 days ago	2	4567	0	1160.02
Home idle load	12 days ago	2	4192	0	1159.71
Mohammad Furqan	12 days ago	2	4423	0	1133.24
CITTA Foundation	11 days ago	1	5176	0	1127.45
Tony Langdon	12 days ago	2	5488	0	1120.68
Northeast Iowa Council	10 days ago	0	4421	0	1113.13
Anabwani I of Bunyoro	13 days ago	3	5931	0	1112.35
Vishal Vada Vala	11 days ago	2	4370	0	1067.97

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

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

Fails WP:NBAD and WP:GNG. His achievements are all at junior level and at the moment not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. zoglophie^•talk• 14:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Malaysia. zoglophie^•talk• 14:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

  People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

  • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

  Sources

  1. Ho, Kelly (2020-01-06). "Diocesan Boys' School student and badminton star Jason Gunawan follows in his father's footsteps". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-08-26. Retrieved 2024-08-26.

     The article notes: "At some point, every athlete dreams of making it to the Olympics, but local badminton prodigy Jason Gunawan has had his heart set on competing at the sporting event since he was four years old. Jason, who celebrated his second consecutive win in the boys’ singles event at the All Hong Kong Schools Jing Ying Tournament last Monday, says he has been dreaming of Olympic glory ever since he watched Chinese player Lin Dan take gold at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. ... A love of badminton runs in Jason’s family. His father, a Chinese Indonesian, used to play for the Jakarta province team. As a child, Jason would head to the local sports centre with his father every Sunday to practise, eventually earning a spot on the Hong Kong junior team. He now trains 30 hours a week at the Hong Kong Sports Institute, but still finds time to practise with his dad, his biggest supporter."

  2. Cheung, Ka-Wa 徐嘉華 (2024-05-25). "羽毛球｜ 由外圍賽打至8強止步 吳英倫下月生日願望：今年闖入世界排名頭30" [Badminton｜ From qualifying to the top 8, Jason Gunawan's birthday wish next month: to break into the top 30 in the world this year]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-08-26. Retrieved 2024-08-26.

     The article notes: "父母是印尼華僑的Jason，曾於2020年以最年輕球手（當時16歲）奪全港錦標賽男單冠軍，可惜一場疫情斷送足足3年的青少年比賽，直到2022年5月才開始由低（國際挑戰賽級別）打起，... Jason今年初繼續參加「國際挑戰賽」，亦遇到一些「超級300」的比賽，世界排名由年初105位到本月泰國公開賽（超級500）時是96位，他在該賽的16強，遇上世界排名第5的日本球星奈良岡功大，雙方拉鋸3局，港將只在決勝局輸「刁時」（21:11、 15:21、20:22)，世界排名升至本周的83位。"

     From Google Translate: "Jason, whose parents are Indonesian overseas Chinese, won the men's singles championship in the Hong Kong Championships in 2020 as the youngest golfer (16 years old at the time). Unfortunately, a pandemic ruined the youth competition for three full years, and it was not until May 2022 that it started. Starting from a low (International Challenge level),... Jason continued to participate in the "International Challenge" at the beginning of this year, and also encountered some "Super 300" competitions. His world ranking increased from 105th at the beginning of the year to this month's Thailand Open (Super 500). ) was ranked 96th at the time. In the top 16 of the tournament, he met Japanese star Kodai Naraoka, who was ranked fifth in the world. The two sides went back and forth for 3 games. The Hong Kong player only lost to "Diao Shi" in the decisive game (21:11, 15 :21, 20:22), the world ranking rose to 83rd this week."

  3. Chan, Kin-wa (2020-11-15). "Jason Gunawan crowned youngest-ever Hong Kong men's badminton champion at 16". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-08-26. Retrieved 2024-08-26.

     The article notes: "Jason Gunawan became the youngest-ever men’s singles champion at the annual Hong Kong badminton championships at Kowloon Park Sports Centre on Sunday, thanks partly to his decision to turn to full-time training amid the pandemic. Just three months after cutting short his secondary school studies to pursue a full-time sporting career at the Sports Institute, the 16-year-old teenager reigned supreme in the three-game final against Chan Yin-chak, winning 21-19, 17-21, 21-13 to put himself in the record books."

  4. Chan, Kin-wa (2020-12-01). "Young gun Jason Gunawan sets sights on winning Olympic gold for Hong Kong". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-08-26. Retrieved 2024-08-26.

     The article notes: "Outside of Hong Kong there is badminton legend Tony Gunawan, the 2000 Sydney Olympic men’s doubles champion of Indonesia. Here in Hong Kong there is 16-year-old Jason Gunawan, a fast-rising talent now setting his sights on becoming another Olympic gold-medal winner like his namesake. ... Gunawan will not be present in Tokyo either as he is still competing in junior events, but the 2024 Paris Games will be his first attempt at making the step up to Olympic level, with the Los Angeles Games four years later his major target for a medal. ... Born in Hong Kong with an Indonesian-Chinese father, Gunawan was destined to make a name in badminton before he was even born, he said."

  5. Ng, Chia Yin (2024-05-24). "Jason: I thank coach Wong for helping me grow". The Star. Archived from the original on 2024-08-26. Retrieved 2024-08-26.

     The article notes: "Hong Kong’s rising star Jason Gunawan appreciated coach Wong Choong Hann’s role in the growth of his career after checking into the men’s singles quarter-finals in the Malaysian Masters. ... Jason, who will be turning 20 next month, is expecting a tougher job against world No. 19 Lu Guangzu of China next but looking forward to gaining invaluable experience."

  6. Chiu, Tsz-chun 趙子晉 (2023-09-14). "羽毛球．香港賽｜李卓耀不敵基斯迪衛冕失敗　吳英倫力追世界距離" [Badminton: Hong Kong Open｜ Lee Cheuk Yiu Fails to Defend Title Against Kistkidis, Jason Gunawan Closes the Gap to World Rankings] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-08-26. Retrieved 2024-08-26.

     The article notes: "吳英倫決勝局初段把握對方情緒不穩，多次放高波予甘克起板，Jason曾經領先5：2，甘克一度滑倒倒地。惟Jason體力有所下降，... 年僅19歲的吳英倫，以往主力出戰青年賽為主，就算越級挑戰成年組也是大多是國際挑戰賽級別，主場的香港賽是他生涯首個BWF 500分的賽事。"

     From Google Translate: "Jason Gunawan took advantage of his opponent's emotional instability in the early stage of the decisive game and sent high waves to Gan Ke several times. Jason once led 5:2, but Gan Ke once slipped and fell to the ground. But Jason's physical strength has declined... Jason Gunawan, who is only 19 years old, has mainly competed in youth competitions in the past. Even if he jumps to the adult group, most of them are international challenge competitions. The Hong Kong competition at home is his first BWF 500 in his career. points competition."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jason Gunawan (traditional Chinese: 吳英倫; simplified Chinese: 吴英伦) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Cunard, Except for the first source, the coverage of him can't be written as "Significant", which are some scant detailing about him in 2-6. He is a booming player for sure, and we got to wait for him to become a noteworthy figure in future. zoglophie^•talk• 10:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The first two sources—the South China Morning Post and Sing Tao Daily articles—provide substantial coverage about the subject, which enable him to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The other sources also provide significant to less significant coverage about him (they discuss him in their headlines and cover biographical details about him in the article). The sources all contribute to notability because Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." Cunard (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting could an editor review these sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per Cunard. Meets WP:SPORTSBASIC. Plenty of coverage. C F A 💬 03:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet the WP:SPORTSBASIC standard. Numerous articles create a historical record of the person as an athlete in badminton. When looking at WP:SIGCOV argument proposed by User:Zoglophie against WP:NOT and WP:NBAD, it does not seem that it meets the notability standard for an athlete in this sport. There is consistent coverage to acknowledge notability when the standard is met. Ventric (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Did you assess the sources in this discussion? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• Withdrawn after reviewing sources. Thank you, I needed another look. Ventric (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Unreferenced cross-wiki spam. Mccapra (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Thailand. Mccapra (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Not sure what the "cross-wiki spam" claim is supposed to mean. It's a nationally televised TV series, and has the usual press coverage[1][2][3] and magazine covers[4][5], though as is often the case most information seems to be from press releases. It's 15 years old now so some sources may have gone offline. That said, The current article is such an uninformative substub that there's not much to lose if this is deleted without prejudice. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. The sources presented by Paul 012 can be added to the page and I consider them enough to show this is notable. A redirect should be considered anyway.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. What target article are you considering if this article was turned into a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

If a redirect is the path chosen, it could be to List of Thai television soap operas.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

NGC 7075 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This galaxy is not notable, all of the references are to catalog entries. Parejkoj (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

There is some commentary beyond catalogue entries about this galaxy here: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/499/4/5719/5923577?login=false , https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/489/3/3739/5554765?login=false and https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/484/3/4239/5299582?login=false. The radio source accociated with the galaxy is descripted in a more than a passing reference in a table here https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/282/1/40/1036079?login=false. It is a keep for me. --C messier (talk) 08:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

None of those papers are about the galaxy itself, they just have some paragraphs discussing it. That's pretty weak notability at best. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Still these are multiple sources that provide commentary that is more than a trivial mention. The ALMA series is quite low volume, only discussing a dozen objects at most, including this particular galaxy. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material WP:SIGCOV. C messier (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment According to WP:NASTRO we presume notability because it was discovered before 1850 but a careful investigation may show that it is not notable. Even if we discover sufficient references to meet our notability critera we may go on to decide there should not be an article on this galaxy. I hope that is completely clear! Thincat (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Although it might not be notable, we can redirect this galaxy to Lists of NGC Objects (7000-7800) as an alternative like NGC 1016, NGC 4 and NGC 529.--Galaxybeing (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per C messier with more than trivial coverage. Otherwise redirect to Lists of NGC Objects (7000-7800) as an ATD. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Nonnotable surname (only one notable individual with this surname, who probably died 1800 years ago and who has no page on enwiki); material can be merged into Ji (surname). We don't need so many articles with Chinese disambiguators. Yinweiaiqing (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, unless a stronger reason for deletion can be provided. The article currently cites multiple sources – is there something wrong with them? It doesn't make sense to merge to what is effectively a disambiguation page. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: per Mx. Granger. What's wrong with articles using Chinese disambiguators? C F A 💬 22:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Delete The sources are entirely lists and it fails WP:NNAME. I'm failing to see how the article passes WP:NOTDICT. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete the first source is just a list of surnames from 1,000 years ago. It is a trivial mention and improper use of primary sources. The second source doesn't mention the surname, I can't really tell if the third source is reliable or not, it appears to be user generated but it may just be how the site is presented. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Television. Joeykai (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, Australia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, passes WP:GNG per these sources [6][7][8][9] which give fairly significant coverage to the subject. There are also other sources available that when combined further their notability for an article. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well, source 8 above is a brief album review in Billboard (fine I guess), the rest are about the season of Big Brother and mention this person in relation to the others on the show. Not exactly significant coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Merge: to the Big Brother season? Seems to have survived long enough on the show, but I'm not sure they're notable outside of that context. Doesn't seem to meet musical notability requirements either. The Billboard review is fine, but it's used for musical notability, then we go onto the TV show sources; you have to pick one sort of notability, you can't stack them. Being almost notable as a DJ and almost notable as a TV personality don't add up to an article here. I'm not fussed if this gets !deleted either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hopefully we'll see more participation. Also, to the nominator, in the future, please provide a more comprehensive deletion rationale that demonstrates BEFORE has been done.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources I added.

Sources:

1. Gorman, Brigid O (23 April 2013). "Barrister's a secret singing sensation". Lawyers Weekly. Retrieved 1 September 2024.
The article notes: "Barrister by day; sexy singer by night. That's the life that has been led by Melbourne barrister, and now pop sensation, Bowie Jane... ... The songstress, whose story has received international press coverage in recent days, is a practising criminal barrister in Melbourne, but she managed to keep her musical pastime a secret from colleagues and clients – until now at least."
2. "Meet Bowie Jane". VoyageLA (Interview). 5 April 2021.
The interview notes: "I'm an Australian who has lived in Los Angeles for six years and I’m loving it!" "I was living a very secret double life until my story was exposed by the Daily Mail in the UK which was crazy at the time – I was front page of every major paper in the UK and on every radio show. My double life is that I'm a criminal trial attorney having worked in money laundering and tax fraud but am also a professional DJ singer-songwriter! Basically, I would work as a lawyer during the day, then rip off my conservative clothes and get on stage at night. The lawyers didn't know I was a singer and the musicians didn’t know I was a lawyer. Once my story became public knowledge around the world, I quit the law and am now a full-time musician. I've been performing since I was a kid and started out in musical theater and madrigal groups believe it or not! I think that's where I first fell in love with harmonies. I then really wanted to be in a band so started doing acoustic duo work and then moved into the band arena, started songwriting and then releasing in the UK and touring. ... I love revving up a crowd!"
3. Doreian, Robyn (25 August 2013). "All out, all change". Lifestyle. The Sun-Herald. Sydney: Fairfax Media. p. 12. Retrieved 1 September 2024. While studying law and commerce at Deakin University, she played covers at restaurants in an acoustic duo. Once qualified, the flip side to courtrooms was laser-lit gigs at venues like Transport, at Melbourne's Federation Square, where she blasted her energetic originals. And in 2013, she sang at the Australian Open tennis tournament. The moniker Bowie Jane came from her nickname - ever since she was a child, she's worn glittery bows in her hair. It was also how she kept her alter ego hidden from colleagues and clients. ... In March, she shelved four years of law practice and moved to London to become a star.
The article notes: "But for Bowie Jane (her stage name), law was an obvious career. "My brain has always been lawyer-ish. When I was 12, I had written contracts with my parents stating who would pay for what in my upbringing." ... While studying law and commerce at Deakin University, she played covers at restaurants in an acoustic duo. Once qualified, the flip side to courtrooms was laser-lit gigs at venues like Transport, at Melbourne's Federation Square, where she blasted her energetic originals. And in 2013, she sang at the Australian Open tennis tournament. The moniker Bowie Jane came from her nickname - ever since she was a child, she's worn glittery bows in her hair. It was also how she kept her alter ego hidden from colleagues and clients. ... In March, she shelved four years of law practice and moved to London to become a star. ... Jane now lives in a share house in Camden. Meetings with management, publishers and performances cram her days. She has also been doing radio interviews to promote her second single, Bad Boy."
4. "Dance Club Songs". Billboard. 13 October 2018. Retrieved 1 September 2024.
The Billboard chart notes: "Busted Bowie Jane – 21 LAST WEEK – 21 PEAK POSITION – 6 WEEKS ON CHART"

I also found this unreliable law profile source, with her real name:

1. "Miranda Ball". Meldrum's List. Retrieved 1 September 2024. The law profile notes: "Miranda's experience is extensive having run high profile White Collar Crime Litigations as both a Partner then Barrister. Her recent work includes the Bernie Madoff litigations in Bermuda & the UK, Operation Wickenby, Australian Crime Commission investigations and examinations, Special Leave Applications to the High Court of Australia, Legal Professional Privilege Claims, Constitutional Challenges, Children's Court hearings, Australian Taxation Office litigations/investigations and Coronial Inquests."

There is sufficient coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, plus the sources identified by @Ednabrenze to allow the subject to pass the general notability guideline, requiring "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --Yours sincerely, Bas (or TechGeek105) (talk to me) 06:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd like to get a second opinion on these recently located sources. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep: I've looked at the first three articles found by @Bas/TechGeek105 and they all provide significant coverage of the subject in my opinion. The Sun-Herald one looks more like a traditional newspaper; Lawyers Weekly and VoyageLA both say they have editorial oversight. The article itself is much better in terms of citations and content compared to when it was proposed for AfD. Nnev66 (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The subject does not meet the WP:NTEAM or WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. The only sources in the article are primary and a cursory search didn't reveal anything that would establish notability. Let'srun (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Softball and Thailand. Let'srun (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Zero third-party coverage. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more participants here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Kimia Alizadeh vs Nahid Kiani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article attempts to be a WP:SPINOFF from Taekwondo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 57 kg but nothing that is mentioned here cannot be there. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Martial arts, Olympics, Iran, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep I've added content and WP:RS that supports the article. This article is specific to not only an event within Taekwondo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 57 kg, but also the prior tournament, the background and events surrounding the bout including the censorship, as well as reactions. Having all of this information placed within the Taekwondo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 57 kg article is unbefitting and WP:UNDUE.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep The sources available are enough to have notability. As with any highly trending event at the Olympics, they should have their own article. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete Unnecessary WP:CFORK. The match is notworthy of a standalone page and any descent info can be easily be added to Taekwondo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 57 kg. Lekkha Moun (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

As stated above, it would be WP:UNDUE to redirect/delete it as the article isn't just about the match, but also includes the prior match, the reactions, aftermath, censorship, etc., and the article is noteworthy with WP:RS.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as an unnecessary WP:CFORK, all of the content can be covered adequately elsewhere. Of the text in the article:

1. The fact that it's a rematch of a 2020 match is somewhat trivial
2. Kiani won the silver medal, the latter being the first for an Iranian woman at the Olympics, surpassing Alizadeh's 2016 bronze feat can be mentioned at her article and/or Iran at the 2024 Summer Olympics
3. While Kiani competed for the Iranian team, Alizadeh competed for the Bulgarian team after having represented the Refugee Olympic Team at the 2020 Summer Olympics, and Iran at the 2016 Summer Olympics where she became the first Iranian female medalist at the Olympics. can be covered in Kiani's article and the relevant "Team X at the Y Summer Olympics" articles.
4. Alizadeh became Bulgaria's first-ever taekwondo competitor at the Olympics, and won Bulgaria's first medal in Olympic taekwondo can be mentioned at Bulgaria at the 2024 Summer Olympics.
5. "Aftermath" section can be mentioned in either the event article, this can be added to Concerns and controversies at the 2024 Summer Olympics.

In summary, none of this content needs a separate spinoff article for one match. And there is no one sensible merge target. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Excellent summation by Joseph2302. I do believe this does not deserve its own WP article as is seems like WP:NOTNEWS. I do think there's material there that can be put into existing articles--especially since they're both individually notable. I'm just not sure where the best fit is for all the information. Papaursa (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

I added three sources to this article, as it had previously been unsourced for 19 years, but I don't think any are helpful for notability. The first merely says that the book was published and what it was about, the second is a book that cites the book and summarizes its arguments, and the third is a review from a British politician's personal website which would be useful however owing to its self published nature is probably not countable for notability. Nothing that actually discusses the book, not enough for WP:NBOOK.

It is frustrating that this book appears to be non-notable, as it appears to be very highly cited (confounding my effort to find discussion of it). Redirect to Mohammad Hashim Kamali? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. If the book is "very highly cited" then it satisfies the guideline WP:TBK. NBOOK, like PROF, is, by design, not just a rehash of GNG. The book has some coverage in Reference and Research Book News, and a thorough description of the book (which will not fit in the author's article) is helpful. [I struck my previous !vote which discussed possible merger and redirection targets.] James500 (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  @James500 My interpretation of WP:TBK is that it is a rationale for relaxing the degree of sigcov required for academic publications, but not that it is an excuse to not have any - it's phrased in a vague way that imply a combination of several of these factors may help, and this doesn't hit too many of them. The R&R Book News publication is two sentences which just summarize the book - they don't really do reviews, it's usually just a sentence on "this book was published and here is what it's about", which can be helpful but which does not help notability IMO. AFAIK it is generally frowned upon to only have material in an article that is sourced from the topic itself, and that's really all we can get here. "very" highly cited was probably an overestimation on my part, but it does have some yes PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  Your interpretation of TBK is mistaken. TBK says nothing about "significant coverage". The entire purpose of TBK is to disapply GNG. James500 (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well TBK is vague and does not have any clear-cut guidelines like NBOOK does, only "possible findings" and a suggestion to use common sense. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  The possible findings for notability under WP:TBK, as listed without elaboration, are some combination of the following:

  • whether the book is published by an academic press, (no)
  • how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, (cited a decent amount, but not to an exceptional degree)
  • the number of editions of the book, (a few, not very high)
  • whether one or more translations of the book have been published, (none)
  • how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, (not very)
  • whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions (no)

  Hence, I disagree with a keep vote. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  Looking at GScholar, Kamali seems to have an exceptional level of citation. The average h-index for a law professor is less than 3, because it is a low citation field for academics. He is said to be "the most widely read living author on Islamic law in the English language". I am tempted to invoke BKCRIT #5. James500 (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well, he's definitely notable. BKCRIT #5 only applies to people whose "life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.", which he is not, but I guess I can see your case here. Unfortunate that we only have an article on what appears to be the least notable of his many works. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  The book "Islamic Commercial Law: An Analysis of Futures and Options" has 333 GScholar citations. The preceding article "Islamic Commercial Law: An Analysis of Futures" has 75 citations. The preceding article "Islamic Commercial Law: An Analysis of Options" has 66 citations. That is a total of 474 citations. I would say that it actually is very highly cited. James500 (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion, between two experienced, well-intentioned editors is about as No Consensus as you can get. More participation here would help but I'm not sure if the subject area is too niche to draw in other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Appears like 2 articles exist for same context. Jammu and Kashmir Black Day. Why do we need 2 articles on same issue? Thewikizoomer (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and Jammu and Kashmir. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• What's the second article then? It's not obvious from the article and your complete lack of description. I see it now. I still wouldn't use AfD as an avenue as requesting a merge in the talk pages would probably be better. – The Grid (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: It seems that Kashmir Black Day and Jammu and Kashmir Black Day are two different topics. I’m unsure if Kashmir Black Day meets the WP:N but the current AFD appears unclear. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, It would be better to request a merge in that case. The article in current state appear to be related to two different observances one celebrated by Pakistan and other by India respectively. _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 05:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I concur! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

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

• Oppose No reason to merge as two different observances in two different countries. War Wounded (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The deletion rationale is that we didn't need two articles on the same subject. But now that it's been argued that these articles cover two different subjects, are there any other valid grounds for deletion? Clearly editors are opposed to a Merge but that is not the same as arguing to Keep this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep given 4 reliable news articles covering it. Some focus more on explaining the conflict than detailing the event itself, but at least one does and all give some details on it and make arguments about its motivations. It's worth having an article on at least so that people can see what it's about if they're curious. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

List of telecommunications companies in the Middle East and Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

What wikipedia is not, is not a WP:NOTADIRECTORY which this article clearly is. Govvy (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Lists, Africa, and Middle East. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• keep. A reasonable navigation tool; only remove items without wikipedia articles. --Altenmann >talk 17:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  Again, like I replied in the other article, Navigation tool? What's wrong with a category or a template? That doesn't really seem like a valid argument for keeping the article. It still violates NOTADIRECTORY. Govvy (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep. I'm not sure what part of WP:DIRECTORY this meets. This list does not consist of simple listings, the topics here are not loosely associated, not non-encylcopedic cross-categorizations, a genealogical entry, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. Grouping telecommunication companies together by area sounds reasonable to me. We have lists like List of companies listed on the National Stock Exchange of India, how are those lists not directories when this one, apparently, is? IMHO I think that the Middle East and Africa telecom companies should be separated but this does not fail WP:DIRECTORY. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

List of telecommunications companies in the Americas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is basically a directory article again, WP:NOTADIRECTORY, we have categories for this. We don't need list article for this. Govvy (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Lists, South America, and North America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• keep. A reasonable navigation tool; only remove items without wikipedia articles. --Altenmann >talk 17:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  Navigation tool? What's wrong with a category or a template? That doesn't really seem like a valid argument for keeping the article. Govvy (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Govvy: I agree that the argument might not be valid, but Altenmann has a point about navigation. If someone is reading Wikipedia and looking for a list of telecommunication companies in the Americas, they probably wouldn't look at a category, and a template would be wayyyy too long if we were listing all the companies. (For templates, though, we could split the companies up further into Telecommunications companies in X country, but frankly that would probably overcomplicate a lot of things and it would take up a lot of time.) Heck, before I dove deep into Wikipedia, I didn't even know what a category was. (I am only replying here, not in the other AfD to keep discussion centralized.) ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep. I'm not sure what part of WP:DIRECTORY this fails. This list does not consist of simple listings, the topics here are not loosely associated, not non-encylcopedic cross-categorizations, a genealogical entry, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. Grouping telecommunication companies together by area sounds reasonable to me. We have lists like List of companies listed on the National Stock Exchange of India, how are those lists not directories when this one, apparently, is? IMHO I think that the North and South America telecom companies should be separated but this does not fail WP:DIRECTORY. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I fail to understand how this is any different to the previous List of telecommunications companies article I split it from.

I’m not going to get passionate about either position on the matter, I split the articles only for readability. Adriazeri (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

That's very against WP:OR. There is nothing encyclopaedic about these articles. Govvy (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

This has got nothing to do with WP:OR, what are you talking about? Adriazeri (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I also agree. I'm not seeing anything about these lists that violates WP:OR. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Found some sources [10] and [11] which are trivial. However [12] appears to be extensive, but I don't think its enough for WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Austria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: My searches yielded lots of passing mentions in "match" reports. The Salzburg24 article linked by the nom has a few sentences of coverage, but nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV. The subject fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Thanks for the source; it's been added to the article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement on whether or not the sources are sufficient.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Delete most of the sources is database or passing mention which fails WP:SPORTCRIT per Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases.

and Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 02:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this Mexican volleyball player to warrant a stand-alone article, failing WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Possible redirect targets include Mexico men's national volleyball team and 2022 FIVB Volleyball Men's World Championship squads. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Volleyball, and Mexico. JTtheOG (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• He was elected as the best at his position (libero) at a continental championship - seems to match "The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level." from the linked sports criteria. Gunnar Larsson (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
  • The key word here is likely, as in the subject is likely to have received significant coverage from independent reliable sources by achieving this sporting success. No such coverage has been found. JTtheOG (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Wayne T. Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Alabama, and Texas. BD2412 T 02:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hoping for more participation. I do question the deletion rationale as the article creator is a current editor in good standing so while the article might have had some editing to it by paid editors, it wasn't created by a UPE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy keep: AfD is not clean up, Yes, the article is in bad shape but the subject of the article is notable enough as the lead alone is enough explained how he is notable. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 08:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: meets WP:NBASIC. Promotional content can be removed. No reason to delete an article on a notable topic. C F A 💬 16:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 02:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Possibly relevant discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Electrical_engineering/Archive_1#Is Home Idle Load a neologism? PianoDan (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need to hear from more editors in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: The concept discussed in the article is distinct from standby power and plug load and doesn't have a clear merge target. The issues regarding paid contributions could be remedied in a rough manner by removing all mentions of specific brands, recommendations, etc., and it isn't so bad that the whole article should be deleted and redone (WP:TNT). The concept exists beyond its uses to promote brands. Reconrabbit 16:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to hear from more editors. While the page creator might have been a UPE, this article has been edited by many more editors since 2017. Other opinions on what should happen with this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, just remove everything that could be paid/promotional. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 21:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

A mayor with not much media coverage. Doesn't seem notable per WP:NPOL. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep, Furqan is the mayor of a city with over 800,000 people and there are many Hindi language sources; Dainik Jagran, Amar Ujala, Dainik Bhaskar, Jansatta, and Aaj Tak Microplastic Consumer (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep per Microplastic Consumer. Sources are somewhat routine but still offer enough significant coverage to meet WP:NBASIC. It's not like he's a losing candidate; he was elected as mayor of a large city. C F A 💬 03:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

This article is very promotional and written in a very spammy way. I have already removed a copyright violation but I cannot find any sustained coverage of the organisation that would help it pass WP:NCORP, save some press releases. – Isochrone (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. – Isochrone (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Education, Economics, Nepal, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep The article goes over a foundation. Many of the individual projects have coverage in reliable, neutral, third-party sources (especially in terms of architecture) which are cited. One of the projects is already a Wikipedia article and is linked to in the article. In terms of individual projects, there is a healthy amount of coverage online. I will add criticism about one project that was discontinued to add a complete perspective of all projects. — Note to closing admin: Starlighsky (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

• Delete. Per nom. Case of WP:PROMO, Promotion, advertising. Company fails WP:N and WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I would think that it is not promotion or advertising because it has a criticism of a failed project by the foundation. Starlighsky (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that the article was based on the GYAAN Center architecture. The reasoning was that writing about the foundation allows for the center to be written about: (External link) The Gyaan Center, a Sustainable Architectural Marvel in the Heart of India’s Golden City - Architect and Interiors India Starlighsky (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist in hopes of additional participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. A search under his name and "Anthony Langdon" yielded no sources. I also searched Australian database trove and it only yielded two 1 line mentions of this person. LibStar (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Represented his nation. Multiple secondary sources available on British newspaper Archive, I have added two of them and there are plenty more available. Racingmanager (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Racingmanager (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

  Representing his nation does not guarantee automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: National winner, thus pass #4 of WP:NMOTORSPORT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Criteria 4 of NMOTORSPORT is not applicable to this case by any stretch of the imagination. Further, this user has since been banned from deletion discussions (ANI decision). 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

    @5225C: But does then their comment count towards the final verdict? They were banned after they made this comment. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 20:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

    • That's for the closing administrator to decide. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

      @5225C, do you have a view of the notability of this person? LibStar (talk) 04:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

      • The sourcing in the article is almost comically bad. I don't think it's anywhere close to meeting the GNG. I have serious concerns about speedway coverage on Wikipedia. Virtually every article I encounter, whether it's a team, rider, or series, has a complete lack of quality sourcing and generally lacks a credible claim of encyclopaedic significance. Apologies to fans of speedway, but not every sport is actually notable, and it doesn't look like speedway personalities deserve encylopaedic coverage (not that they get any coverage outside of speciality, industry-published outlets). If it were up to me, I'd batch delete every speedway biography written in the last two years. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

        Thank you. Just noting you haven't actually cast a !vote here. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

WP:BRANCH. The branch lacks enough independent notability to be able to pass WP:NCORP and I suggest DELETING or REDIRECTING, but I am not sure of target. Graywalls (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, and Iowa. Graywalls (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. The relevant standard for nonprofit organizations would be WP:ORG rather than WP:NCORP, and there is no mention of any WP:BEFORE search. A quick search of Newspapers.com finds a widely syndicated article about the sex abuse scandal involving the Northeast Iowa Council, such as this 2024 article in The Muscatine Journal (the version which appeared in The Gazette is accessible here). There are also feature articles about Northeast Iowa Council's old Adventure Island camp (dating back to 1952), and the Claus family's agreement to lease the Northeast Iowa Council land for its new camp (1956). I would argue that there is enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG...but that it's the sex abuse scandal that makes the issue of whether or not to keep this article more complicated than any notability criteria. If the article is kept, the issue needs to be addressed within the article itself. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  The form of incorporation with their local government entity isn't all that relevant. It only matters when their scope of activity is national or international. Graywalls (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more participants here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Anabwani I of Bunyoro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This appears to be a hoax, or at the very least non-notable. The article was created by User:Anabwani2007, whose only edits consist of creating and editing this article, as well as adding a mention of Anabwani to Omukama of Bunyoro. None of the links presently given in the article even mention Anabwani. I wasn't able to find even a mention in reliable sources either. A Ugandan newspaper, Daily Monitor, mentions him in an article, but that's it (and their list is sourced to the monarchy's website anyway, where he's similarly merely mentioned once). toweli (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Uganda. toweli (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Keep most sources on the article are self-published, however per WP:MONARCH he is considered automatically notable as a sovereign ruler. Azarctic (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well, the issue is, I'm not sure if he's even real (I haven't seen a mention of him predating the 2010s), and even if we count that particular newspaper article as reliable (which I'm not certain that it is), the only thing we can say is that he existed, which isn't enough for a standalone article. toweli (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  In general, the Daily Monitor holds a left-leaning editorial bias and is reasonably fact-based; however, they poorly source information. The articles does really need more reliable sources for verification which is why I made my vote a weak keep. Azarctic (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep note that the source used for this was likely oral, and his being mentioned in a literate source should be enough to put it beyond reasonable doubt of him being genuine

Kowal2701 (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The only source stems back to an honours mill that just had a half-dozen articles deleted within the last month for self-published promo. How is this any different if it’s all stemming from an interested party? —Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 04:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Dubious at best. Each source finds its way back to a self-published honours mill. Wikipedia is not here to boost the claims of unreferenced, unverifiable pedigrees. —Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 04:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: I did a search, and there does seem to be quite a few sources on the topic, so that mostly rules being a hoax. And of coarse WP:MONARCH makes the topic notable. Lordseriouspig 20:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  Could you link some of those sources? toweli (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Simply fails WP:FILMMAKER. Sources are not helpful toward establishing notability on this subject, the ones from WP:BEFORE are not helpful either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: meets WP:DIRECTOR with at least 3 notable films directed (and WP:CREATIVE with 2 written). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. None of his work is widely cited and significantly well-known that have been the primary subject of multiple independent reviews. Only exception is film Samandar that has barely two reviews and I could not find any more. The subject has not won significant critical attention for his work. The sources on the pages lack significant coverage on the career of the subject and are more on actor'debut, title track, unveiling of teaser, claim of audience reaction, unreliable source like filmytown.com and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. RangersRus (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Draftify it needs more sources. Xegma(talk) 14:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)