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.
Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Prod was removed by an editor who added sources. However, almost all the sources are primary. E.g. from Handball Australia. The ABC source is third party but it's not WP:SIGCOV. Winning the Oceania Cup isn't much of an achievement given the weakness of competition. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm not seeing any evidence of individual notability here. While the unused scripts of Rise of Skywalker have coverage, Valum has absolutely none. The Yahoo source is referring to the script exclusively (With only one mention of Valum in the whole article), ScriptShadow doesn't seem to have a proper editorial team and is thus unreliable, LRMOnline seems reliable at a glance but is still almost exclusively covering the script as a whole, with Valum only a part of it, while CBR has no bearing on notability per WP:VALNET. The development is entirely about the script, with the Polygon source and the Collider source not even mentioning Valum. There's no evidence of this character having notability separate from the script. Additionally, the current uploaded image for Valum is a copyright violation, as it has been uploaded to the Commons with no attribution. Additionally, while it isn't an exact match (And Earwig won't let me check this myself) the plot summary in the article is highly similar to the summary found here: https://unpublished-villains.fandom.comview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Tor_Valum in numerous areas, and appears to be at the bare minimum partial plagiarism. This article seems to fall afoul of multiple different issues. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Star Wars: Duel of the Fates - Not only non-notable in general, it seems from the little bit of coverage about him that he was not even a particularly major character in the unproduced script. Many of the sources being used here just very briefly mention the character while summarizing the leaked script, and several of them don't even mention the character at all, making this look like a case of WP:REFBOMBING. At best, this can just be redirected to the main article on the unproduced film, where he is already mentioned in the plot summary. Rorshacma (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. This can't be made into a substantial article with reliable sources, likely because it never had a public reception. Sometimes unreleased content can be WP:NOTABLE, but most of the time it isn't. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Star Wars: Duel of the Fates as there does not appear to be significant coverage about this character in reliable, third-party sources. I think a redirect would be preferable to outright deletion as this is a viable search term that readers could use. Aoba47 (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. The Development section doesn't even have any secondary sources that mention Tor Valum, just Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker Expanded Edition. hinnk (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged the article for speedy deletion with {{db-g12}}. If the page is speedy-deleted, anyone can create a redirect.
The initial revision has 92.1% similarity with the Fandom page linked by Pokelego999, with most of the Biography and Development sections highlighted.
The violation can be fixed by providing attribution using {{Fandom content}}, but the apparent consensus here is that the content is not usable and should be removed by redirecting.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Was changed from a redirect by a new user, simply not seeing any amount of standalone notability for this character whatsoever; in my opinion it fails GNG clearly and the redirect should be restored. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Wookipedia entries are Creative Commons, but it's not a good look for someone to come in and immediately just start copypasting articles regardless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The violation can be fixed by providing attribution using {{Fandom content}}, but the apparent consensus here is that the content is not usable and should be removed by redirecting.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. as the article creator indicates they no longer need this page as well as those editors arguing for Deletion. LizRead!Talk!21:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Article creator Ridiculopathy is still a relatively new editor who has made good contributions and didn't fully understand the rules around WP:NLIST and WP:LISTCRITERIA. We discussed this on my Talk page (since archived). I would send it back to user space to give the editor a chance to salvage the sections worth saving for another article (and most likely rename a subset of the draft or just get it deleted it when they're done). Cielquiparle (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Cielquiparle, I've taken the necessary sources off it and am satisfied to let it be deleted now it needs be. I'd self delete it myself but am away from my laptop at present. Thanks Ridiculopathy (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed to userfying, but I'm skeptical there are enough sources which treat these as a group. It doesn't appear there are any in the article itself yet. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 21:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎20:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:SALAT, very incomplete list that could potentially contain tens of thousands of entries. We have much more selective categories (by field by century, by field by state,...), and even better-defined sublists such as List of German chemists, there is no need for this overarching uncurated list. Broc (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree. To be even minimally useful such a list would need to include dates and sub-fields, but even if it had those delete would be the right choice. Athel cb (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎20:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too vague, just a list of links to Wikipedia articles about people with German names. Holger Ziegler is a good example, American born, but with a German name. Some of his career involves German, some not. — Maile (talk) — Maile (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Promotionally toned article on a non-notable mother-of-pearl artist. It seems to be part of a possible walled garden on various family members of the Mushi/Munsi family. No indication from the current sourcing nor in a BEFORE search that this artist passes GNG nor meets the criteria for NARTIST. All I found online were WP mirrors. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This artist doesn't seem famous. Their work isn't widely recognized and there's hardly any reliable info about them online. Seems like a clear case of someone trying to boost their profile. Waqar💬16:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Literally nothing about them online except for their own websites. Very obvious WP:NORG fail - might even qualify for A7. Was most likely a WP:UPE creation, surprised it survived this long. CFA💬23:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Their own website, then linkedin, then directory listings... No coverage in Gnews or anywhere else for this company. Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:NOTSTATS, because very few care about - and cover - the sixth thier of football in a country of 6 million where ice hockey is the national sport. At one stage we stop to provide tables for amateur sport, and Vitonen is firmly below that threshold. Geschichte (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are loads of non-league seasons, I am slightly confused by this single nomination. Nostats for season pages of leagues is not a reason for deletion. Govvy (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One reason is that I will never make a bundled nomination, since they have largely fallen out of favour. Another reason is that this page is new and it's a crossroads to stop more Vitonen pages from appearing. As such, there are not loads of pages about sixth-tier leagues in small countries. Yes, NOTSTATS is a reason for deletion because it's a part of the policy WP:NOT. Leagues should be covered only when they get significant attention. Geschichte (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte: New? The article was created 25 January 2010! Finland a small country? I don't think so, you failed to mention general notability issues. Really, this is a very poor nomination from my perspective. Govvy (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
All accessible sources are either primary sources or passing mentions (to the extent I can understand them, through gtrans). Fermiboson (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The arguments to keep are weak; those arguing to delete present a convincing case that the encyclopedic material here is easily covered elsewhere, and no sources that would justify a standalone article have been provided. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated by IP 117.230.88.202 as follows: Not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", hence fails WP:GNG. It violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY as listing all gazetted designations are NOT within the scope of an encyclopedic article as it is not a directory or manual. The article predominantly consists original research, with references that barely support it. Legodesk.com fails WP:RS. (end quote) - UtherSRG(talk)16:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Legodesk is not the only citation of this article. There are several references/citations which are indefinitely reliable like : The Hindu, "Indian Laws" Several Official Government of India website(s), Website of Directorate of Printing, Gov of India, Other prominent news/media like Amar Ujala, The Indian Express, etc. Deleting this article would be a big loss to the encyclopedia because Gazetted officers are the officers due to whom the whole country INDIA, works in a systematic manner.
Delete appears to be a regulatory requirement for promotion, likely too limited in scope for coverage here. I don't see the need for this article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There's a claim on the talk page that the article is based on a computer game guide that preceeds the history of the page, hence there is a potential copyright infringement. I can't access the source, but perhaps others will be better able to assess the claim. I note other unresolved maintainence issues. Klbrain (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources used are for submarines... Being sourced to a game manual isn't quite what were looking for. This is amply discussed in other articles. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Tone is not encyclopedic. Poorly sourced. Any necessary information could be easily folded into carrier strike group or Naval tactics. I looked at the source that User:Some Harp user provided on the talk page as the source material. It seems similar in tone and topics, although at a quick review I couldn't identify any direct quotes lifted. Also noting that there is no indication of when this information is from. Is this how strike groups work now or 30 years ago (when the game manual was written) or some other time? These problems have existed with the article for over 20 years so likely aren't going to be resolved anytime soon. meamemg (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak deleteComment My knee-jerk response to this article is "Cool!!" Now to read it with care... Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC) Okay, yeah, I see what you guys are talking about. Large parts of this article are redundant with content that is (I presume) better covered elsewhere, such as Battlespace. Good candidate for WP:TNT. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable actor, possible mercenary work. Most of the sources are mere mentions/name-drops of her, being focused on other members of her family instead. Urdu!VoA is a prose-style interview with her based on the automated translation, two sources are about being given a non-exclusive reward. Draftification attempts led to a move-war; see WP:AN/I#User:BeauSuzanne. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques16:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Not where biographies of living persons are concerned. Literally everything in the article that could reasonably be challenged must be sourced, and the award is the only thing that can be sourced based on what I'm seeing. An "article" that just states she won an award without any further context isn't really much of a stub, let alone an article. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques16:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For the record - I draftified the BLP because it was in poor shape, filled with WP:OR using WP:FICTREF. However, Mushy Yank reverted my draftification without addressing the WP:OR issues, which escalated into a move war (not initiated by me though). This BLP appears to be a case of WP:UPE because it was created by an editor BeauSuzanne, who has a notoriously bad history of creating BLPs on non-notable subjects using WP:FICTREF. Anyone arguing for keeping this based on WP:ANYBIO # 1 must understand that there is no consensus that ANYBIO #1 supersedes GNG.. Clearly, the subject fails to meet the requirements of GNG and WP:NBIO as well. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeraxmoira expanded the BLP since it was AfD'd, but I still don't see it meeting the GNG and since there's no consensus that ANYBIO#1 overrides GNG, so in order to preserve Jeraxmoira's work, I'd like to suggest we Redirect it to Naeem Tahir per @S0091, — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Stating that I had not tried to honestly address the issues mentioned in the tags then on the page (and judged that they could reasonably appear addressed; even if they were perhaps not completely addressed) is at best exaggerated (see my edit, edit summary, the tags themselves (different of those currently on the page), the state of the page then and page history) and stating that there was a move-war is clearly misleading (see article TP, where this was explained. Thank you. I will not make any further comments here, the same way I did not reply any further on that page and stopped editing it, for various reasons, including lack of time. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)16:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is a well know a radio artist. The government of pakistan awarded her and she also worked in a few dramas which i added but you removed it.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]
BeauSuzanne, Your argument that she received an award (WP:ANYBIO# 1) has already been countered above and your claim that she also worked in a few dramas doesn't really justifies a standalone BLP and is not convincing either, especially if the roles were not major. And as you yourself mentioned, that she's a radio artist, which also makes it difficult for her to meet the NACTOR. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't radio artist notable she has been workin since 1958 which is in the source too and has worked more than three decades.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Delete: wedding photos and discussions of her spouse are all I find... The award could suggest notability, but the sourcing isn't there. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Allan Nonymous the award is one of the highest national honors bestowed by Pakistan. In the year she received it, there were only 36 recipients and she was one of the two females. It may not be enough to establish notability but please do not call minor. S0091 (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP - I'm simply pointing out that the credibility of this award isn't strong, so it's not inappropriate to classify it as a minor civilian award. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've stated my position and while I don't need to provide evidence for everything I say, but, if you insist, you can refer to this, this and this, which says In the past, numerous Pakistani TV, film, music and literature personalities have been given these awards, while others struggled to even get nominated. Many complained of the lack of a stringent criterion and claimed favouritism as well.. If you don't want to trust me, that's your choice. However, you should consider trusting these sources and the former senior cabinet minister who have made the same statements as mine, about these civil awards. I prefer not to engage with WP:LOUTSOCK, so I won't argue further. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single source claims that Yasmeen Tahir got an award due to personal connections or that she was not awarded as per merit neither they mentioned Sitara-i-Imtiaz is fake/minor. You are throwing fictious sources that does'nt support your claims. 2404:3100:1402:FFDF:1:0:9155:36D0 (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
S0091, Allow me to clarify my remarks. I do not deny that it is one of the highest civilian awards in the country. Perhaps my wording was incorrect. What I intended to say is that it is referred to as minor in the sense that it lacks credibility and I provided sources to support my claims, and the more I research it, the more I find opinions aligning with mine. [Granting civil awards to minions, crooks and fraudsters has eroded the prestige and value of these awards.] That said, it's still an honor to receive such an award, even if its credibility has diminished. However, basing a BLP solely on this award doesn't make sense to me at all. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think we can all agree Yasmeen Tahir is not one those crooks or fraudsters. :) That opinion piece is about civil awards in general, of which there are several, with specific focus on higher education and one example regarding the Tamgha-e-Imtiaz. Also clearly he agrees the award has prestige and value; otherwise it couldn't be eroded. As I state above I am not saying the award in and of itself establishes notability; only that is not a minor award. S0091 (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sitara-i-Imtiaz#Recipients of Sitara-e-Imtiaz: I have tried to find at least a couple secondary reliable sources with in-depth coverage about her but everything is brief mentions. Within those mentions it is clear to me she has had an impact but it's not enough to establish notability. However, sources could come to light in the future so I at least want to maintain the work that has been done which a redirect will accomplish. I do think the title should changed to Yasmin Tahir, though. S0091 (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep per Jeraxmoira's improvements and additional findings along with mine. It is clear Tahir/Tahir's work has been written about so sources exist but the issues are access to sources and transliteration. S0091 (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Most of the sources exist in the keyphrase "یاسمین طاہر". The initial concerns about sourcing have been significantly fixed now. Many of the latest sources added are not mere passing mentions and multiple sources verify particular claims. Everything in the article is sourced and the concerns about OR and UPE have been fixed as I have contributed to almost 55.5% of the article's content, completely rewriting it forward and none were referred from the 4 July version of this article.
There is much more information available now beyond wedding photos and content related to Naeem Tahir which were also one of the previous concerns. This article cannot be redirected or merged to a suitable target, i.e Naeem Tahir, Imtiaz Ali Taj or Sitara-i-Imtiaz as it has extensive coverage from her early life till now, which will be lost or cannot be fit into another article without disparaging it. With the current level of sourcing, the subject passes WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO#1.
Per Sitara-i-Imtiaz - It recognizes individuals who have made an "especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of Pakistan, world peace, cultural or other significant public endeavours". I believe her continued contributions from Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 until now is what made her eligible for Sitara-i-Imtiaz. The amount of coverage she has now is surprising for someone who is notable for her work during and after the war, when the internet did not exist. This article should be kept as a significant amount of coverage exists in offline books, local newspapers and other magazines popular during that time. Adding that to what we have online will easily make her notable. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I have no idea how or where they'll be able to find it in Pakistan. Most probably in a renowned public library I guess. My point is that the subject will pass GNG easily with what we may find offline, which is just additional to what we have online and I believe what we already have online/in the article is enough to establish notability via SNG. FWIW, her name has a lot of hits in the Urdu Digest monthly magazine, but I haven't used them because of poor translation output. If I am right, significant coverage is not necessary for someone who passes WP:ANYBIO, so I think we have addressed all the issues here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jeraxmoira, Thanks for your efforts in expanding this BLP However I must highlight that the majority of Urdu sources you cited are not even considered RS for BLPs and I'm unsure if we can use them for WP:V much less to establish GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the sources added by Jeraxmoira are impressive. Transliteration makes searching difficult -- Yasmeen, Yasmin, Yasmine could all be used in English -- and the fact there aren't sources in English doesn't mean this person isn't notable in Pakistan. Valereee (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Doesn't pass WP:FOOTYN, since FC Aksakovo is not a professional club and FC Spartak Varna did not perform at the highest national level when Penev played for the club. Doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV also. Tau Corvi (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This player seems like a total nobody. He barely played, and the articles about him are just quick mentions in random game reports. There's nothing really significant enough. Waqar💬16:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I cannot find any reference to this except for the organisation's own website and Facebook / Twitter posts and some accounts of meetings of the organisation (for example the annual training event at https://vijesti.hrt.hr/hrvatska/hrvatski-savez-slijepih-11611855). There may of course be other references that I haven't found that would demonstrate notability (and might, incidentally, also enable the page to be deorphaned). Newhaven lad (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to accept the consensus. However, I have checked all the sources found by SportingFlyer (and had found several of them before I suggested deletion). With one exception, they all contain very similar material that appears to have been provided to news outlets by the organisation itself about one of its events. The exception is material about a cultural organisation that is happy to take over space previously used by the Association. The source found by Eastmain appears to be a link to the Association website. None of this material appears to me to provide independent commentary about the organisation or its notability. (The presence of a couple of politicians at the event is not, I think, sufficiently remarkable). But happy to go with the consensus if others disagree with me. Newhaven lad (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not all of the articles, though - a very cursory search on Jutarnji shows four pages of search results dating back to at least 2006. There's plenty of information out there. SportingFlyerT·C15:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Twice I've redirected the article to Outlawz only to have it reverted by an SPA. Anyway, he doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC guidelines as a solo artist while he (and the group) is only known for his association with 2Pac, and I don't see him getting any more notable as his career was so short and he is long deceased. Since this is its third trip to AfD, perhaps a salting is also in order. 💥Casualty• Hop along. •20:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: It is not mandatory to go through WP:AFCREVIEW. In addition, as an Extended confirmed user I can create articles without submitting them. For clarification, I have no COI with the company or its co-owners, and according to billboard, they are pioneers of Afrobeats. So why not? 🤷♂️.--Afí-afeti (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Promotionally-toned article on a non-notable artist. Possibly COI or UPE as part of a series of promotional articles on the Munsi/Munshi family. A BEFORE did not find independent SIGCOV in reliable sources. Possibly a family history or memorial project? Sourcing does not meet GNG nor NARTIST criteria. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Borderline G11, would not object to draftification for an unconnected editor to attempt an article about Munsi's contributions to the Academy, but that alone isn't grounds for notability and I do not see sourcing to pass N:ARTIST although I acknowledge age of his life is in issue there. StarMississippi15:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also in 1965, another document covers the news of exhibition by Munsi along with other painters. Although these links are available online, there were two books published offline in which Munsi was commemorated which also supports the notability of the subject. Also, in those books it was mentioned that after Munsi's death the Tata Group commemorated Munsi with all his paintings published in their calender.For an artist, is it not a notability when he gets remembered by internationally renowned conglomerate like Tata Group? Finesilpo (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Name mentions or acknowledgements or image/photo credits are not significant coverage which is what is needed for GNG. Furthermore, the majority of these links are unverifiable. A corporation like Tata Group using his images in a calendar is also not significant coverage nor does it contribute to notability. Sorry to disappoint, but he fails NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: I find no coverage of this person, what's used in the article is trivial coverage. There seems to be nothing online about her. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not appear to be notable or pass WP:GNG. Not convinced the current citations are enough.
Previous AfD ended in no consensus, with the "keep" votes talk about it being the first Chilean show on Cartoon Network, but not providing any sources to either back that up, or cite that it was signifigant enough to pass notability guidelines. DonaldD23talk to me13:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With Mushy Yank's additions, there appears to be enough attention in the Chilean press to demonstrate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Perumbavoor#Educational organisations with the option of merging useful content. There is clear consensus against a standalone list here, but consensus isn't clear on whether content should be merged, and to where. Given the short article, I believe that can be handled through normal editing procedures. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, overzealous creation of namecruft. People who type in Alphonse Joseph in the search box will have both names come up there. Geschichte (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Not much justification for this page existing; Alphonse Joseph is for one a random given/middle name combination, not a given name as the article incorrectly states. Because of the unlikelihood of someone to be referred to by their first and middle names, such indexes are not typically created on Wikipedia, and we can see that they are indeed not referred to as "Alphonse Joseph" per the sources that nom gives. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not opposed to the redirect mentioned by Broc; nor to Keep (if one considers his role in The Kung Fu significant too, for example) or that the number of his roles can make him meet WP:NACTOR (31 credits=prolific?).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)14:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. He lacks significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Heng was not even part of the starring cast in any movies nor TV series, not even on Girl vs. Monster nor Kung Fu. All of his roles are minor roles both in film and TV series. No significant coverage of him as an actor. This is considered to be WP:TOOSOON. — YoungForever(talk)16:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article creator has a conflict of interest (declared in their page) for being paid by Fikra (ref 1 in the article), and this person, Amgad Fareid Eltayeb, is the CEO of the organisation.
Going back to WP:NPOL, this person was the assistant chief staff to Sudan's PM, which does not meet the notability requirement for inclusion .
Examining WP:SIGCOV, the sources in the article are mostly not about him. It is mostly about the program that he claims to be part of, for example, Ref(5) is about the project - Nafeer Campaign - itself, same for 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, etc. Also few refs are self-published, like ref 16 and 17. The "Political approach and views" section is purely original research, and I have tagged multiple instances of weasel wording and failed verification. Final thing, when looking for articles about this person in Arabic just to confirm coverage, I found negative coverage that is not included in the article (probably due to the author COI). For example, Fareid was convicted of domestic abuse, see 1, 2, 3 and 4. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak delete. I would argue for redirect, but he is not mentioned in articles about the teams he played for. Passes WP:RU/N (played for Leopards (2006) and Griffons (2011) at the Vodacom Cup), but doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. Except for statistics, I only found an interview with him [13]Tau Corvi (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I see a consensus among participants that this is not a POVFORK and this article should be kept but could probably use additional sourcing if there is a bias present. LizRead!Talk!06:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to solicit advice about Islamic Association of Palestine and merging it into Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. I don't want to force a WP:SILENCE on this, as I assume this may be contentious and relate to WP:ARBPIA, but it seemed noone was interested in a merge discussion after a month.
Information about the trial
The IAP article is a POVFork about the same trial as the HLF, with the same individuals and facts of the trial, and the original version of the article IAP last month went really deep into various conspirary theories linking IAP to every other Muslim organization in some grand "Jihad" terrorist ring. Particularly egregiously, the support for the conspiracy theory was from a source that was attempting to debunk it. The sourcing for HistoryCommons.org is a deadlink. And a source from Matthew Levitt is used more than ten times to make up most of this article, a person from the very pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and a key witness for the trial. Relying so heavily on sourcing that is intrinsically related to the trial seems like a good argument to suggest this is an article about the HLF trial and not the IAP as an organization.
Information about what the IAP
I can't seem to find anything specific about the IAP from a lot of searches that doesn't immediately reference the HLF trial, and some of the sourcing on this that seemed to talk more specifically about the IAP is from deadlinks. If the only thing notable about the IAP is the HLF trial, then the article should be just merged into the HLF trial page.
I cleaned up some of it, but there is not enough differences between the two versions I think to justify making a new article.
Keep. Not seeing how it's a purported POVFORK. Per sources, the Islamic Association of Palestine is a separate organization from the Holy Land Foundation, so they should not be in the same article. An editor's perception of bias is not a reason for AfD, which is determined by coverage in WP:RS. Levvitt is a scholar and reliable source. Affiliation with an organization perceived as bias does not affect whether the source is credible and a reliable source of facts. Lots of coverage in source across the ideological spectrum that clearly establishes WP:GNG:
Second, third, fourth article is about the HLF trial.
Fifth source mentions IAP for one paragraph, and includes HLF.
6th source uses a scratch note from one Muslim Brotherhood guy that was never accepted by any other muslim brotherhood. This 1991 note became the basis for the Civilization Jihad conspiracy theory in the 2000s to 2010s.
matthew Levitt was the key witness for HLF trial, and his work is entirely about proving financial connections between groups. His writings are about the holy land 5.
i argue that if this article is mostly about the trial to convict the 5, and the IAP is not sufficiently notable by itself except in context of the trial, it should be merged (maybe keep as a subsection in HLF what it did). User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that a passing mention (one word mention) in three of these sources also suggests it is a passing reference as part of discussion for the HLF trial.
I want to find more sourcing beyond the HLF trial and its repercussions, that there is enough info besides just the HLF trial to suggest it warrants an article User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That Matthew Levitt source is used 11 times throughout this article, when in the Holy Land article, his sourcing is used only once suggests a POV Fork.
"Similarly, to judge from his acknowledgements and his notes, Levitt depends heavily on analyses from the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center of the Center for Special Studies — an Israeli nongovernmental organization created "in memory of the fallen of the Israeli intelligence community" and staffed by its former employees... None of this would matter if Levitt used the center's analyses critically, but he doesn't appear to. As a result, there will be readers of this book who will see it as fronting for the Israeli intelligence establishment and its views."
Not arguing he's not academic, just biased (As is every source on Israel/palestine), and that citing him heavily about the trial and the evidence tying the defendents together in one article, and not citing heavily in another suggests a POV fork. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Islamic Association of Palestine is a different organization from the Holy Land Foundation. How is this a POV fork of the Holy Land Foundation - the article does not exclusively rely on Levitt's writings, directly cites an FBI report, and refers to a different organization from the HLF. Both were convicted of providing material support for terrorism and were proven to be fundraising arms for Hamas, alongside the Quranic Literacy Institute. All three organizations are notable as per the general notability guideline as per the sources Longhornsg provided. This article could easily be repaired by bringing in sources from the other two articles about the Holy Land Foundation case, so that the article is not largely reliant on Levitt, given possible concerns of bias. In order for something to be a POV fork, it must be on the same topic as another article. The Holy Land Foundation article is about the Holy Land Foundation, whereas this article is about the Islamic Association of Palestine.
It discusses the same trial to the same five men for 95% of the article. The suggestion to bring it into line by including sourcing from the other article would be to keep discussing the trial.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The subject doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCER. The majority of sources cited in the article are sponsored content. I can't find any independent reliable sources about this producer yet.
The page was moved from the draft to the main space without any improvements, and the templates were removed without resolving the issues by the author. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁06:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. There are clearly two topics that could be this entry. Having this lead to a disambiguation page prevents accidental links from happening as bots notify users when adding these. There is zero upsides to deleting or redirecting this. Gonnym (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alex Danvers, in the light of comments below.
Delete: Disambiguation page only links to one article, the other is just an article where the second subject is mentioned. —Mjks28 (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Right now, there is no consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alex Danvers. The only two topics are the character (who has a standalone article) and a TV show episode named after that character (which does not have a standalone article). A hatnote is definitely sufficient for dealing with the small number of people who would want to go to the list entry about the episode. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, again. Arguments are almost evenly divided between those wanting to Keep the page and those advocating a Redirect (with a few Delete opinions mixed in). So, we need some more policy-based arguments or some participants reconsidering their "votes". No consensus closures tend to make all sides dissatisfied so that is the last resort if nothing changes here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alex Danvers with hatnote per Quicole above. As has been mentioned, the episode is stand-alone and is referencing the character regardless.
I'm unclear how this responds to my concern. An editor using the link Alex (Supergirl) for the episode now gets a warning they added a disambiguation link to an article. If this changes to a redirect to the character, it won't happen and it might not be fixed. How is changing this to a redirect helpful? Gonnym (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think deletion is the right choice. If the "Alex" episode had its own article it would be a different matter, but as there is no article for it, having a disambiguation page wouldn't be helpful. -- Mjks28 (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
We do not need a page for every minor battle in this war. The bulk of the paragraph for the battle consisted of Russian Telegram links and ISW sources. The links to the ISW sources were dead, and I couldn't access which date the sources were coming from. The sources reporting the Russian capture of the town and second battle could easily be input into the page for Robotyne itself, as it doesn't have SIGCOV or notability in the sources mentioned to establish the second battle as it's own page.
I agree, since we never created page for first battle of Robotyne during 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, but instead have a information in 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive and Robotyne pages so I don't think it will be necessary to create page for second battle of Robotyne either. Hyfdghg (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree it is hardly notable and barely has a tactical or strategic importance. In fact, it's mostly a symbolic victory to undo the Ukrainian counteroffensive. If Russia reaches the trenches further north and levels the front, then we can start talking about some tactical notability. With that being said, I don't mind a draftification. And by the way, what's the deal with the generic dev-isw refs?! Where are the editors getting them from?! Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's terrible. I highly recommend someone contact the dev of the ProveIt code and try to get that fixed, because it's caused so many well-meaning editors - including myself several times - to unintentionally add completely useless, broken cites to articles about very important topics. HappyWith (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, we don't need an article for every minor battle. We must weigh coverage against WP:NOTNEWS (routine coverage) when we are mainly confined to NEWSORG sources. Content is best placed at the town's article and potentially in a higher level article. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, this conflict in particular has revealed the limitations of NEWSORGs wrt fog of war. Hindsight, on the other hand is 20/20. A good example is Battle of Moshchun, which was only created eleven momths later. Follow-on sources can change the picture considerably. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete thank you Jebiguess for starting this AfD and for pinging me. I agree with the topic not being notable. The engagements during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive in Robotyne were much more notable, being the bulk of the counteroffensive at its later stages, and yet it doesn't have a page (nor should it have one). These engagements are significantly less notable and there isn't much distinguishing them from other Russian-led offensive actions in the frontline during this time other than the symbolic value. By the way, perhaps my sources of information on the war are biased, but as far as I know Robotyne hasn't fallen and has been subject to a back-and-forth, the contents of the article maybe contain original research. The start and end dates most likely do, as usual with these articles on minor engagements.
I personally don't care if the article is draftified but I really don't see it becoming an article ever in the future so we might as well not delay its fate and delete it. SuperΨDro22:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think this is the right course of action to take. Yes, the sources are questionable, but I think the better solution is to find better sources and update information accordingly. And yes, it’s a minor battle tactically, but it’s an important battle symbolically, as the liberation of Robotnye was one of the only gains made during Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive. LordOfWalruses (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment expanding on my “draftify” vote…first of all the battle isn’t even over. And while the Russians may see it as merely a psychological thing, at least one Ukrainian source (Bohdan Myroshnykov) has written in strong terms that the defense of Robotyne is key to the defense of Orikhiv, much as Synkivka is key to the defense of Kupiansk. The idea behind draftifying is that drafts are cheap, and even though notability isn’t super likely to emerge from follow-on analyses, some material is likely be useful for related articles. I’ll address others’ points separately. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose draftifying but I'm not certain of a benefit/distinction between that and moving relevant content to Robotyne for example (if not already there). For the benefit of others, retaining it as a draft (for now) does not imply it will become an article, only that it might become an article if good quality sources (rather than routine NEWSORG reporting) indicate long-term notability. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion/merge: The Russian military's capture of Robotyne can be appropriately covered in a few sentences at the southern Ukraine campaign article; I find it unprecented, unwarranted, and undue to glorify this event with a standalone "battle" article. Best wishes to all editors involved SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Reading through all of the comments here, I see the strongest arguments for either Draftifying this article or Merging it. In both cases some content will be retained but the Merge option does require the effort on a knowledgeable editor now while a move to Draft space just relocates the article and the subject can be expanded at a later date should circumstances change. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Southern Ukraine campaign: The information is useful, but does not require its own article. Whatever can be reliably cited should be moved to the main timeline article. Draftifying is practically no different than outright deleting: I do not see WP:LASTING notability being established anytime soon, so the article will just end up being deleted in draftspace after 6 months. CFA💬20:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
-->Changing to Keep per WP:HEY thanks to the work of User:Ahola .O since nomination, including sources showing a certain notability as comedian.
Delete Limited coverage, no evidence she meets the guidelines. Not in favour of redirection, per WP:LISTPURP and no point redirecting to a page where she isn't mentioned. Mdann52 (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From my search, subject seems notable and has significant coverage. She has featured in some films and has some level of notability in comedy. I made some improvements on the page as well. I hope it helps Mevoelo (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I agree with moving the article about Calabar Chic to the List of Nigerian Actresses, which is a more general page. Due to a lack of coverage, the article doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG guidelines. Redirecting will put her mentions in the right place. It will keep helpful content while following Wikipedia's guidelines. It also links the subject to a relevant, broader topic.--AstridMitch (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I also agree to keep the page because she meets WP:NACTOR guidelines, she has roles in notable films, television shows, stage performances, and other productions, some are listed on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahola .O (talk • contribs) 06:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not going to reply specifically to anyone in this discussion, but I have to now since I think you’re misinterpreting NACTOR. One thing is for the films they starred in to be notable, another thing is for their roles in the films to be significant. This is not the case here even in the tiniest bit. Her roles in these films was a significant role, she clearly doesn’t pass the guideline. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. A Google search of the subject shows several newspaper sources that interviewed her. These type of sources are primary sources and cannot be used to establish notability. She has starred in multiple films that are notable, but as someone else pointed out, she did not have a major role in any of those films. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. She has the potential of being notable within a year or two. Versace1608Wanna Talk?14:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sourcing is fine, [20] as well. Most is celebrity coverage articles, but they give background and some context into tragic and not-so-tragic events in this person's life as of late. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus here yet, just arguments to Keep, Delete and Redirect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!04:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lots of interviews by reliable sources, which is a potential indication of (future) notability, but they don't offer enough secondary journalistic coverage outside of the transcript to meet GNG. Definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON. I imagine the subject will be notable in a year or two. CFA💬21:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. I'm as confused as SportingFlyer and Shhhnotsoloud. It's a perfectly routine disambiguation page for two pages that would otherwise have the same title. – Joe (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. I'm as confused as SportingFlyer and Shhhnotsoloud. It's a perfectly routine disambiguation page for two pages that would otherwise have the same title. – Joe (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. Editors are free to move this redirect. You might ask a page mover to do so unless you want a double redirect from Bucal, they can suppress a redirect for the redirect. LizRead!Talk!17:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I can't move an article as part of a closure but I can close this as a Redirect and then the Redirect can be moved. Is this acceptable? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!04:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment, I also found important and notable places in Halang (in Google Maps), Like CityMall Calamba (I worked on CityMall articles and they have 10 sources max), I also found Calamba Institute and a Provincial Office.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Seems to fail WP:GNG - could not find reliable, significant sources about the game besides Time Extension. The other sources from reliable outlets were just not significant coverage and amount to simple Kickstarter announcements, or are primary source interviews. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Announcements about the game in reliable sources is still coverage. Are only full reviews defined as 'significant coverage'? Oz346 (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SIGCOV for games is almost always some sort of major piece of critical commentary. In rarer cases it may be some sort of "making of" article or book or a deep-dive analysis. However, announcements have little to no commentary or analysis and do not address the subject "in detail". To use the Nintendo Life article as an example, the only thing that could be called commentary rather than just quoting others is "Goodboy Galaxy certainly looks polished," which is a trivial mention. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
//Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.//
According to wiki policy on SIGCOV. The main topic of those announcement articles is the game. But I will wait and see what others say as well. Oz346 (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we had six published articles of this quality and length about the Three Blind Mice, including an interview, I am pretty sure we'd be happy to write an article on the band. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – Yes, the majority of the sources are about the single event of the Kickstarter campaign success, but those are still very good sources (Eurogamer, IGN). Nintendo Life considered the game of significant interest before its successful Kickstarter result, and most importantly to me gave us some really good dev info much lateron, showing longevity. Not yet used but also showing notability is SiliconEra and a brief mention in Gamespot in 2024. I do not see any reason why this article would not meet WP:N. Wikipedia is not a glorified review aggregator. I'm unfamiliar with Way Too Many Games and Time Extension, but the latter is listed as reliable. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like you're just collecting all the reliable sources. Most of the sources you've presented are just routine game announcements. This is the only good source [21], but is pretty flimsy and doesn't help GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think sources reporting on the release of an independent game on 20-year old hardware is ever really routine. That sort of thing is pretty rare. (Also there's Time Extension of course) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, I don't consider announcements as significant coverage, none of them "addresses the topic in detail". Maybe if they had played the demo or watched the trailer and wrote something critically based on that, it could be considered SIGCOV but none of them did. Siliconera article's two paragraphs about the game is not enough to be considered as SIGCOV. Time Extension review is the only piece that qualifies and it's not enough. --Mika1h (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mable's sources above. The WP:GNG requires third party sources to cover the subject in detail. We have multiple sources doing this. It does not matter that they're covering a game announcement or Kickstarter. The GNG does not care about that. They're third party sources publishing dedicated articles to the subject. And we have an RS review too (Time Extension) so its not like its "only game announcements" anyways. It's not a homerun, but the delete stances are holding the bar higher than what the GNG actually says... Sergecross73msg me18:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight: you are saying this is significant coverage? If not, then which other articles are you arguing provide significant coverage (besides Time Extension, which is already pretty short for a review). You claim SIGCOV exists but I am not seeing it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eurogamer when you ignore the inline trailer/unrelated videos is only a paragraph with the barest of description. IGN is as well, when you ignore the talking about other games. I am actually flabbergasted that this would legit be considered non-trivial coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't summarize others comments so dishonestly. I'm having a hard time believing you're struggling to follow me this poorly with these follow up questions. Those descriptions are careless. For example, it's only the last sentence or two of the IGN source that mention other games. It's still a source largely dedicated to the subject, not a passing mention or listicle entry. Sergecross73msg me21:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are multiple articles from multiple reliable sources covering the game. Individual articles should not be looked at in isolation. The coverage is cumulative. Oz346 (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is a fundamental disagreement here about whether sources provide SIGCOV or not. We could use other voices, especially from editors working in this subject area. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WPVG custom search engine yields additional coverage from Hardcore Gamerand4gamer. Critical commentary is extremely weak, however, and the Way Too Many Games review should be removed. Time Extension and this article provide only two paragraphs combined of commentary (I have seen games with similarly lacking reception get articles though). Despite this, it looks to me that reliable sources have adequately covered pre-release and development information. This article is an odd case where its notability hinges heavily on coverage of its development but I think that still counts. LBWP (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since people are here voting keep based on news announcements, just want to point out that WP:SBST states that routine news reports are not significant coverage, even a large amount of them. For example that Hardcore Gamer announcement, the writer doesn't provide his own commentary: "The team behind the game stated", "According to Rik, one of the leads". It's a glorified press release. --Mika1h (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the better thing to link to would have been WP:NOTNEWS, which essentially says the same thing but for all articles. Pointing people to Kickstarters counts as routine coverage for a gaming site, they do it all the time. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it can be said to apply to all articles, WP:NOTNEWS seems to be referring to events and people. A video game is in another class of articles. And this article is more than just an event or announcement. Oz346 (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's for news events. The subject is not an event. Come on, people. Regulars should not be struggling with this. There are lots of times to cite NOTNEWS. Video games are not one of those times... Sergecross73msg me00:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Since all revisions appear to be substantially fake/LLM, delete and then create a redirect to [[Franco-Thai_War#Campaign]. VQuakr (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: The Florida Times-Union source already in the article along with [[22]] and [[23]] each contain multiple sentences of in-depth, significant coverage of the subject. I'd say the WP:GNG is met here, and while this article needs to be improved, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Let'srun (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Refs. 1 and 2 are not independent coverage, and the other sources here and in the article are pretty routine local coverage, failing WP:NOTNEWS (routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities ... is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage) – for examples, here are twosimilar articles from this year. Note that this person seems to be different from the member of the Missouri House of Representatives of the same name, who would be notable under WP:NPOL. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find anything better than the sources here above, and those do not approach notability. Routine reports of changing jobs in a local or regional paper are not near what would be needed to rise to GNG. Lamona (talk) 04:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Per nom. Fails GNG. There are a few trivial mentions in the local newspapers but no significant coverage at all. The original creator probably had some sort of undisclosed COI with the subject since they have only ever made edits to this article. CFA💬22:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mountmellick#Sport. As an ATD. Or, failing that, simply delete. As has been noted, and while I could find and have added a number of pieces of coverage from the local Leinster Leader paper, it is all ROTM coverage of the club's activities (of a type might expect for any local club in the local newspaper; Anywhere on the planet). I can find nothing to indicate independent notability. Under WP:GNG or WP:CLUB. (While the "one of oldest clubs in Ireland" claim might contribute to notability, I can find no independent/reliable source to establish the claimed 1870s foundation date. Nor is there anything to support the text about performance in national competitions.) That we don't have reliable/independent/verifiable sources to establish some of the basics (foundation/disestablishment/etc) indicates that there hasn't been the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" expected by GNG. Guliolopez (talk) 11:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Population 8? All of the little hamlets in Sukhonskoye Rural Settlement put together might justify a stand-alone article; separately most of them do not. Qwirkle (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:NPLACE. Why do you want to delete (or merge?) this? There are tens of thousands of stubs on low-population localities. If it's legally recognized, it can have its own article regardless of population. I'm confused by your earlier comments: Are you proposing a merge? If so, why are you doing this at AfD? CFA💬02:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:NPLACE.
This only establishes presumed “notability,” a need for coverage. This is not the same thing as a need for a separate article.
Why do you want to delete (or merge?) this?
Because it, and every other little stublet are an affront to the readership. This is supposedly an encyclopedia, isn’t it?
There are tens of thousands of stubs on low-population localities.
Why do you write this as if it is a good thing? What good does that do the readers?
If it's legally recognized, it can have its own article regardless of population.
There are differences between “can,” “should,” ”ought to,” and ”must.” Why do you think this is a subject that requires is own article.
I'm confused by your earlier comments: Are you proposing a merge? If so, why are you doing this at AfD? C F A 💬 02:16, 7 July 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.